Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

GLOBAL CULTURAL DIVERSITY CONGRESS

Resolved,

That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there shall be laid before this House a Return of the Review of events leading up to the cancellation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, including possible implications for corporate governance of the Commission for Racial Equality, by Gurbux Singh.—[Mr. Straw.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Global Cultural Diversity Congress

Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement about the cancellation of the global cultural diversity congress. [126117]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today published Gurbux Singh's report of his review of the events leading up to the cancellation of the global cultural diversity congress, and has placed copies of the report in the Library.
My right hon. Friend and I are grateful to Gurbux Singh for his thorough review. We accept his findings. The review shows that there were plainly serious failings in the preparation for the congress. However, there is no evidence of impropriety. No single event or individual caused the cancellation of the congress. The decision by Ministers not to invest further public funds in the congress was not taken lightly, but it was the correct decision.
We still await the report of the liquidators of GCDC 2000 Ltd., the company set up by the Commission for Racial Equality to run the congress. In the meantime, we welcome the 10 recommendations made by Gurbux Singh about structure, procedure and training. We will ensure that they are implemented, improving financial and risk management within the CRE and clarifying roles, responsibilities and delegated responsibilities within the CRE and between the CRE and the Home Office. There are clearly lessons to be learned from GCDC 2000, and they will be applied to the management of other non-departmental public bodies.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for that statement, as I think it could be called, in reply to my

question. Call me cynical, but I suspect that the placing of the report in the Library may not be unconnected with the fact that I was due to ask this question today. We will consult with some care the report to which the Minister referred, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer one straightforward, factual question. Is it true, as one commissioner for racial equality claims, that the shambles over GCDC 2000 will cost the Government a total of £1 million—£600,000 of which will go to reimbursing the CRE, and £400,000 of which will be made up of Home Office expenses? If so, will the Minister take responsibility?

Mr. O'Brien: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the placing of the report in the Library was directly related to his question, which provided a good opportunity for publication.
Some losses will of course be incurred. We must await the liquidator's report before we know how great they are, although we estimate that they will be quite a bit less than the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, the immediate liability will lie with GCDC 2000 Ltd., the limited liability company set up by the CRE. We will have to wait and see whether any liability extends to the CRE. I do not anticipate that any funding will have to be made available by the Home Office for that. In July 1998, we made it clear that we would not put extra public funding into the project, and we stuck by that decision in February.

Mr. David Davis: The Minister will be aware that the problem and its associated irregularities have delayed this year's National Audit Office report on the CRE. Will he give the House an undertaking that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have access to all relevant information—including information about the limited liability company, to which he would not normally be able to refer?

Mr. O'Brien: Obviously, we will give as much information as we have in our possession to the Public Accounts Committee so that it can conduct its proper inquiries. There is no problem with that. When the right hon. Gentleman studies the report by Gurbux Singh he will see that it is very thorough, but we must of course await what the liquidators have to say about the outcome of their review of the matter. I gather that their report may be a few weeks, or even months, away.

Mr. David Lidington: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in letting me have an early copy of Mr. Gurbux Singh's report. Would he not agree that it represents a devastating catalogue of incompetence and mismanagement in the CRE, its holding company and the Home Office? Will he confirm that, among other charges, Mr. Singh says that the original budget for the conference was over-optimistic, that its costings were never assessed independently, that the accounting officer was kept in the dark, and that the process for approving funding was
not as independent as it could have been?
Does the Minister accept that it is not adequate to say that no one is responsible and that responsibility for the mismanagement must be shared by everyone engaged in planning the congress? The Government are planning considerably to extend the CRE's powers to investigate and report on Government Departments and institutions. Is it not clear that the commission's management, working


methods and relationship with the Home Office must be thoroughly overhauled if Parliament and the public are to have confidence that those new powers will be exercised competently?

Mr. O'Brien: I ensured that the hon. Gentleman would receive a copy of the report before questions today, and I accept that that report discloses that there were failings, especially in GCDC 2000 Ltd., the company set up by the CRE. However, I do not think that that justifies a general attack on all the good work that the CRE has often done in the past. The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful not to get involved in that.
The CRE has protected its statutory independence from the Home Office and the Home Office has, to some extent, respected that over many years. However, we welcome Gurbux Singh's advice that in future there needs to be a closer working relationship between the Home Office and the CRE. In particular, the Home Office will want to be sure that it monitors carefully the financial issues in the CRE, and Gurbux Singh will be content with that, I know.
We think that many issues will emerge from the report. However, many of the recommendations in Gurbux Singh's report have already been implemented or will be implemented, and they will address the issues that came out of GCDC.

Licensing Laws

Mrs. Diana Organ: What response he has received from the police about his proposals to amend licensing laws. [126118]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when publishing our White Paper on the reform of the licensing laws on 10 April, it would be helpful to receive responses by the end of July. I look forward to receiving comments from the Association of Chief Police Officers and other police bodies by then.

Mrs. Organ: I thank the Minister for his reply. I know that the Government's proposals are warmly welcomed by industry and by alcohol abuse organisations. However, what representations has he had from magistrates and local authorities? The magistrates bench in Coleford in Forest of Dean is particularly concerned about the issue, as the magistrates there do not believe that the local authority has the expertise to deal with the matter. Moreover, my local authority in Forest of Dean is concerned about the costs that it may incur should such a modernisation take place.

Mr. O'Brien: I agree with my hon. Friend that the new measures will be good for the police, business, consumers, families and local residents. We have had representations from magistrates and local authorities, and we will obviously take them into full and proper consideration. Magistrates will be involved in the process because the magistrates court will be the court of appeal for many of the issues and will also deal with matters relating to penalties which may need to be imposed on rogue landlords. So in those circumstances, they will retain a role.
Local authorities have expressed some concern about costs, but the White Paper contains provision for the administrative costs that fall on local authorities to be met from fees.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister will know from living in the area that Lichfield is sensibly and efficiently run by a Conservative council. I have no hesitation in recommending that local authorities, when they are Conservative, should be in charge of licensing laws. However, does the Minister accept that dour, dank, possibly even corrupt, councils run by Labour may take the view that they do not want licensing laws to be extended? In those circumstances, at certain times of the evening, people will drift from those rather dour authorities into the happy, sunlit hidden uplands of areas such as Lichfield, which are sensibly run by a Conservative council.

Mr. O'Brien: There was a Labour administration in Lichfield until very recently, and I am sure that it was responsible for anything good that has been done in Lichfield.
Local residents need some say in the way in which the licensing scheme operates. After due consideration, we took the view that the best way of ensuring that local residents had a say was for their elected representatives to play a key part in making decisions. It would be regrettable if the hon. Gentleman believed that local councillors in Lichfield or elsewhere were unqualified as elected representatives to make decisions affecting local people.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his response to that question. There must be a review of the licensing laws, for planning and other issues. Given the expertise and material that magistrates and magistrates clerks have obtained over a period of time, I consider that magistrates should be on the licensing committees. It would be wrong to ignore the expertise in the clerks' offices and on the magistrates bench. I appeal to my hon. Friend to ensure that magistrates are included on the committees that will issue licenses following the change.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. I shall certainly take his views to the review that we are carrying out of the consultation on the White Paper. No doubt, many different organisations and individuals, including many hon. Members, will wish to make representations on the subject, and we shall consider them all. As I said, magistrates will continue to have an important role in the administration of licensing law and, particularly, in imposing penalties and as part of the appeals process. They will still have a role, but we wanted to ensure that we brought local authorities into the process as well. My hon. Friend's suggestion that local authorities and magistrates might work together is certainly well worth considering.

Anti-social Behaviour Orders

Mr. Tim Loughton: What discussions he has had with local authorities regarding anti-social behaviour orders; and if he will make a statement. [126119]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): A large number of discussions have been held over the past three years with local authorities and with the Local Government Association on anti-social behaviour orders. Both local authorities and the police have widely welcomed this new power to tackle a scourge in communities up and down the country. Seventy-nine anti-social behaviour orders have now been imposed by the courts following their introduction on 1 April last year. However, as the House knows, I would like to see them used much more widely. On Wednesday, I shall speak to the annual conference of the Local Government Association, and will there be publishing a new protocol—agreed by local authorities and the police—to provide a renewed impetus to tackle this serious problem.

Mr. Loughton: I agree with the Home Secretary, but why does he think that anti-social behaviour orders have been used at the rate of barely one a week since they were introduced? Does he agree with the social exclusion unit report, which says that
anti-social behaviour is not being tackled effectively?
Will he now admit to some of the blame, not least for sending out such mixed messages to local authorities over the past 14 months?

Mr. Straw: The only mixed message has come from the Opposition, who have appeared from the comments repeatedly made by those on their Front Bench not to want to have this important weapon against anti-social behaviour in place. The hon. Gentleman asked why the orders have not been used more widely. They should have been used more widely; however, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to stand up on behalf of his constituents in the Lancing area of Sussex whose lives had been made a misery by Mr. John Vyles and Mrs. Madeleine Vyles, both of whom are now the subject of anti-social behaviour orders.

Mr. Alun Michael: Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back over the 18 years in which the Conservative party sent out the message that it did not matter what people did—that they could be as unpleasant and anti-social as they wished in the community and nothing very much would happen? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is right to use the orders to prevent anti-social behaviour and that the test should not be the number of orders, but the safety of the general public? Where a message has gone out from courageous local authorities working with the police—in Coventry, for example—the level of anti-social behaviour has gone down.

Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. There is no question but that, as the police themselves report, in many instances the mere threat of an anti-social behaviour order has been sufficient to ensure that the behaviour concerned has moderated. My right hon. Friend will recall that we proposed the introduction of such orders in one criminal justice measure after another and that in each case we were told that it was neither necessary nor practical to have the orders in place—notwithstanding the fact that

there were such serious problems of anti-social behaviour across the country and that the level of crime had doubled under the Conservatives.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the Government were elected to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime and despite the best efforts of the Home Secretary—anti-social behaviour orders are part of a panoply of response—it appears that the overall crime figures are going up again and that violent crime figures are going up again. It appears from a ministerial answer given on Friday that the clear-up rate is less than 30 per cent. on average across the country, so does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, instead of looking for simplistic short-term solutions, it is appropriate for all the parties in the House representing England and Wales to try to get our heads together round two questions? The first is how we can prevent crime more effectively and the second is how we can ensure that there are convictions and that people are dealt with when crime is committed. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to initiate talks in the House so that there can be a collective effort to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers to deliver the goods and deliver the promise?

Mr. Straw: I am always delighted to have constructive discussions with any right hon. or hon. Member of the House about their ideas for better reducing crime and disorder.
As for the crime figures, as the House knows, recorded crime overall appears to be likely to have risen somewhat from March last year to March this year, and violent crime to have risen by rather more. The House knows that robbery, particularly in London, has increased, and we discussed that on Friday during the debate on the Metropolitan police service. However, what is striking about the figures are the significant variations in the performance of otherwise similar police forces and in otherwise similar areas. Although the Lancashire, Northumbria and Kent forces have no more resources than other forces, they all show significant reductions in crime, while in other areas there have been increases. As well as getting on top of the long-term trend in crime, we must take the lessons from those forces and areas within forces that perform well, and ensure that they are translated across the country.

Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even in areas such as Liverpool, where anti-social behaviour orders have been used relatively extensively, they have become a weapon of last resort instead of a tool of early intervention? Will he join me in contacting the Merseyside police and the local authority and suggesting to them that they ought to intervene and use the orders at an earlier stage, instead of using them as the last weapon?

Mr. Straw: I am happy to do so. That is one of the messages that will be contained in the protocol agreed between the local authorities and the police, which I shall publish on Wednesday.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: To what does the Home Secretary ascribe the fact that crime is rising for the first time in six years?

Mr. Straw: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Straw: Of course I will answer. Crime has risen repeatedly since the war. It doubled under the Conservatives. As the right hon. Lady is, I know, particularly concerned about violent crime, she may like to know that in the year for which she was wholly responsible for crime, 1996—[Laughter.] In the year in which the right hon. Lady was a Home Office Minister, 1996, violent crime rose by 13 per cent. We are getting on top of the long-term trend in crime. I should like to know from the right hon. Lady whether she intends to go into the next election casting aside the record of the previous Government, under whom crime doubled, and whether she will promise that year on year, come what may, recorded crime will fall under the Conservatives.

Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps we can now come to the three years during which the right hon. Gentleman has been wholly responsible for crime. I asked him a simple question. The fact is that crime fell significantly and substantially for the last four years of our Administration. It then fell very lightly for the next two years, and now it is rising. To what does the right hon. Gentleman ascribe the fact that crime is rising? May I help him? Does he ascribe any of it to the decline in police numbers of 2,600 since he became wholly responsible for crime? Does he attribute any of it to the fact that 18,000 people have been released before the minimum point of their sentence? Is any of that to do with the rise in crime? It was a very straightforward question. Crime is rising. Why?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady offers me a number of explanations. If it is true that the relatively small decline in police numbers that has taken place since 1997 lay behind the rise in crime that has taken place in some police force areas but not in others, she has to explain why crime fell in the four years from 1992–93 to 1997, despite the fact that police numbers fell in a large number of areas across the country.
The serious answer to the right hon. Lady's question is that there is no ready explanation as to why crime has risen in certain areas. However, as I explained to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), police forces in some areas, including Kent, have been able to reduce crime. Police in Northumbria have reduced crime every year for the last seven years. However, other forces have seen an increase in crime.
Finally, much to the right hon. Lady's disappointment, crime is lower now than it was at the time of the election. That is a better record than that seen by any incoming Government in the past 30 years and compares extremely well with the record under the right hon. Lady's Government, when crime doubled during the 18 years of Conservative rule.

Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary struggles. As he appears to think that he is in opposition and asking the questions, I shall answer.
The Home Secretary asked how crime managed to fall in the last few years of the Conservative Government, despite the fact that police numbers were falling. Crime fell because we put more constables on the beat so that there was a rise in their numbers. The Home Secretary has presided over a steady fall in the number of constables. Does he seriously intend to tell the House that having fewer constables has not contributed to a rise in crime? Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said that the measure of a Home Secretary is what happens to crime figures during his term of office? On that basis, does he not agree that his predecessor was quite a good Home Secretary, and he is proving to be a very poor one?

Mr. Straw: I have always thought that my predecessor was not a bad Home Secretary. However, the right hon. Lady has never taken that view.

Ms Sally Keeble: I am sure that Northampton, which is examining anti-social behaviour orders, will welcome the new guidelines. Does my right hon. Friend recall visiting Blackthorn estate with me before the election? It used to have a crime rate on a par with that of Toxteth and has serious anti-social behaviour problems. Is the Home Secretary aware that his Department funded the Caspar project to deal with anti-social behaviour? Will he join me in paying tribute to the council, residents, police and especially the schools, which have worked to identify the reasons for crime and fear of crime in the local community? Will he consider making a return visit to see the great progress that those groups have made?

Mr. Straw: Indeed, I recall the visit that I paid to my hon. Friend's constituency before the election. The kind of experience about which I learned during that visit, and visits to many other similar constituencies, made us determined to put in place tough measures to bear down on the anti-social behaviour that was ripping apart my hon. Friend's area and many others. I am glad that we have put those measures in place.
I noticed that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) did not mention the Conservatives' attitude to anti-social behaviour orders and did not say whether they would keep them going or, in the words of the Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), would tear them up, despite the fact that they are plainly working throughout the country.

Asylum Applications (Hijacked Afghan Airliner)

Mr. Julian Brazier: What progress has been made on determining the asylum applications of persons who arrived on the hijacked Afghan airliner. [126120]

Mr. Straw: A total of 33 applicants have so far been refused asylum. Thirty-two appeals were lodged, one of which has since been withdrawn. The remaining 31 are being heard by a panel of special adjudicators from the immigration appellate authority, but none have been determined yet. So far, three applicants have been granted asylum. Fifteen applications remain, relating either to


those currently subject to criminal proceedings following the hijacking or to their relatives, and cannot be determined until the conclusion of those proceedings.

Mr. Brazier: Is there not a certain contrast between, on the one hand, the forthright and determined statements that the Home Secretary made all those months ago about speedily ejecting those people and, on the other, the rather sorry answer that he has just given? Can there possibly be a clearer indication of the extent to which this country is seen as a soft touch for asylum seekers than the news in the Sunday papers that another group of Afghans is now planning to do the same thing?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has plainly not read what I said on 10 February 2000. The consequence of our firm but fair approach to the hijacking in February is that just under half of all those who were on the aeroplane have now returned. It was always understood, and I made it clear to the House in my statement on 10 February, that some of those—as it turns out, about half—would be likely to apply for asylum, and those applications have to be processed. I took the exceptional measure of making the decisions about those applications personally in the first instance, and I made most of those decisions, but not all, very quickly. The applicants now have a right of appeal. If the hon. Gentleman or his Front-Bench colleagues are suggesting that we should withdraw altogether from the 1951 refugee convention or give people no right of appeal, we ought to hear from them.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate

Mr. Robert Syms: How many performance targets the immigration and nationality directorate met in 1999–2000. [126121]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche):: The immigration and nationality directorate met half its targets in full, and another two in part. In the final month of the year, IND made 11,340 decisions, which is a new record and almost 5,000 more than in the best month under the previous Administration.

Mr. Syms: The IND 1999 report forecast a budget of £350 million, but we know that the outturn will be nearer £597 million—which is 71 per cent. Over—and, in the same year, more than 20,000 failed asylum seekers have absconded. Is that not a disaster and indicative of the failure of the Government's policy on immigration?

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. He is right to say that the budget has increased; that reflects the number of applications. We said at the beginning that it was difficult to predict the amount that would be needed for asylum support because it depended on numbers. This Administration have removed more unsuccessful asylum seekers than the previous Administration. Why do we not give the immigration service some credit for that?

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that delays in decision making can have serious consequences for the people concerned. Even in what should be routine cases, people are unable to travel or to prove their status because they do not have

documents. What specific targets are being set in IND for dealing with travel documents and applications for indefinite leave to remain? We are aware of the targets that have been set for decisions on asylum cases, but are there specific targets for each area, and if so, will they be published?

Mrs. Roche: Yes, there are, and we will publish the new targets. I can tell my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, that decisions in straightforward cases are being made rapidly, but he will know, as will all hon. Members, that more complex cases take considerably longer. The way to deal with that is to make sure, as we are doing, that the proper administrative procedures are in hand and that there are enough experienced caseworkers. Unlike the previous Administration, whose policies resulted in the voluntary redundancy of hundreds of experienced caseworkers, we are taking on more people.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the hon. Lady convinced that the immigration authorities are totally colour blind in routine cases? Is she aware of the difficulties experienced by Maori people in coming to the UK—difficulties which, one suspects, would not have arisen in the case of white citizens from New Zealand? Will she make sure that, in the work of the immigration authorities, we are as generous to people coming from countries such as New Zealand as those countries have been to UK citizens?

Mrs. Roche: The immigration service and the immigration and nationality directorate operate in a completely non-discriminatory way. If the right hon. Gentleman has evidence of any practice that is not correct, I will be delighted to hear about it, and I undertake to investigate it as speedily as possible. We have only a small proportion of such inquiries, but the right hon. Gentleman may be assured that if such cases arise, the most rigorous investigation takes place.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is it not the case that investment in making decisions quickly saves the Home Office money? If that is the case, what is my hon. Friend's prediction of how quickly decisions will be made in future?

Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend is right; she has great experience of such matters. Not only is it right to make the decisions as quickly as possible, but it reduces the distress of those involved in the process. We are speeding up the asylum and non-asylum decision-making process. A good example is Oakington reception centre, where we consider cases in about seven days.

Mr. Roger Gale: Can the Minister explain why, although she is so reluctant to detain asylum seekers on arrival in the United Kingdom, her Department is now considering building asylum prisons for those whose cases have been determined and who ought to be deported immediately? Does she understand just how horrified my constituents are to learn that, in spite of representations, her officials are still trying to find sites in North Thanet to build asylum prisons for people who ought to be deported?

Mrs. Roche: I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the position. We are talking


about further detention spaces for those at the end of the process. It is unpalatable but true that those whose claims are unsuccessful have to be removed at the end of the process, so they have to be detained. That is why we need an increase in that space. The hon. Gentleman knows—I have met and corresponded with him—that I am certain that that is the way to proceed. The previous Administration sought to introduce such an increase, but did not do so.

Ms Oona King: If he will make a statement on the progress of efforts to reduce the backlog of outstanding immigration cases at the immigration and nationality directorate. [126122]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The backlog is being progressively reduced and we aim to clear it by the end of July. We have streamlined the process for dealing with the intake of after-entry casework. We have introduced revised procedures to speed up the consideration of cases and have allocated all available resources to deal exclusively with backlog cases.

Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am delighted by the undoubted improvements that have occurred. May I ask her about the evidence and inquiry unit? She will be aware that when an entry clearance officer abroad asks the Home Office for a statement of the case, it comes from the evidence and inquiry unit, but often takes six months to arrive. Bearing in mind the fact that many applicants have already waited a year to get an interview, will she consider increasing the allocation of staff at the evidence and inquiry unit? I understand that six hard-working individuals cover the globe. Will she ensure that re-applicants are interviewed in less than a year, because the failure to do so is keeping many families apart in heartbreaking circumstances?

Mrs. Roche: I well understand the important points that my hon. Friend makes. She will know that there is some good joint working between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, with the establishment of the joint entry clearance unit. In the context of that work, I undertake to consider her proposals to find out what we can do to assist in the matter.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The Minister will know that there are reports that many of the Kosovans who were given leave to remain have extended the time that they have been allowed to stay in the country. Doubtless, many of them will apply for asylum. I wonder how long it will take to process their cases simply because such people are kept in limbo while their cases are processed—often for a long time, which is grossly unfair. It is not a question of statistics; real people are involved and the longer they are kept in limbo, the greater the problems for them and everyone else. When will the cases of those Kosovans be dealt with?

Mrs. Roche: I completely understand the hon. Gentleman's point and appreciate the context in which he makes it. More than half those who came on the humanitarian programme have now returned. The great majority of those who remain have claimed exceptional leave to remain rather than asylum. I assure the

hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall deal with the cases of those who have made asylum claims as quickly as we possibly can.

Human Rights Act 1998

Ms Candy Atherton: What discussions he has had with the magistracy about the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. [126124]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Lay and stipendiary magistrates have been closely involved in preparations for implementing the Human Rights Act 1998. They have contributed to the programme of seminars and working groups that the Government have organised to ensure that the courts are ready for 2 October, and have been actively involved in devising and delivering, as well as receiving, the nationwide training organised by the Judicial Studies Board. I know that my colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department regularly discuss with the magistracy issues about implementation of the Act.

Ms Atherton: I thank my right hon. Friend. Is he confident that, in both urban and rural areas, the Act will be implemented well by magistrates, the police and the probation service? Is he confident that they have the right training programmes in place to ensure full implementation of the Act?

Mr. Straw: We have invested a considerable amount of money, time and effort with the magistrates, the police and the probation service to ensure that everyone involved in the criminal justice system is properly apprised of the requirements of the Act when it comes into force on 2 October, but I respectfully remind my hon. Friend that we have been subject to the convention for more than 50 years, so an awful lot of what it contains will not be new to any of the criminal justice agencies.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Having been on a Judicial Studies Board course on the Human Rights Act, I can tell the House how good that course was. I have heard from magistrates in my area that they have much benefited from the course that they have been on. However, what concerns me is that Ministers seem to be woefully ignorant of the terms of the Act. Is the Home Office making arrangements for Ministers to attend courses, so that they can learn about their own legislation?

Mr. Straw: I would require more details to answer that question. Home Office Ministers are pretty well apprised of the terms of the convention. We do our best to observe it, but I am glad to learn from the hon. and learned Gentleman, who played quite a role in the passage of the Human Rights Bill, that there continues to be support for that important measure on the Conservative Benches; it was welcomed by Conservative Front Benchers on Third Reading.

Mr. Patrick Hall: I understand that, in publicising the Human Rights Act, my right hon. Friend plans to hold a competition for schools looking for creative ways of giving expression to the rights and responsibilities within the Act. Will he join me in congratulating a firm in my constituency, Crayola, on its


work with children to promote creativity, positive self-expression and problem solving through today's launch of the first ever national colouring week?

Mr. Straw: On balance, having thought about the question, I think that the answer is yes. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend, his constituents and Crayola, whose products I used at school with such astonishing effect.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Although the Home Secretary is right to say that there has been a lot of all-party support for the Act, what we have repeatedly questioned is whether the Government's estimates of the costs in taxpayers' money of the implementation of the Act are accurate. In the light of further indications that far more cases relying on the Act will be brought before the courts, have the Government massively increased their estimate of the costs in taxpayers' money of implementation?

Mr. Straw: I am glad to have that further reminder of the constructive role that the Conservative Opposition took in the passage of the Bill and of the way in which the then shadow Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), wished it well from the Opposition Front Bench and advised his colleagues not to vote against it—indeed, he advised them to support it on Third Reading. It is possible that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has been going on and on about the cost of the measure. It is the first time that I have heard him raise it. I do not recall such matters being raised to any degree during the passage of the Bill. By definition, we cannot exactly predict the behaviour either of defendants or, more particularly, of the courts. However, there have certainly been no major revisions of the estimates that we previously made public.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill

Mr. John M. Taylor: What estimate he has made of the cost to internet service providers of complying with the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. [126126]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government have estimated that the cost to internet service providers of complying with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill will not exceed £20 million in aggregate over the first four years' operation. I am satisfied that the requirements that we have in mind will be consistent with comparable countries. I should also draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that Parliament will have a further chance to scrutinise the detailed technical proposals before the requirements come into force and before any costs are incurred.

Mr. Taylor: What does the Minister have to say in response to the British Chambers of Commerce report that the Bill will cost the economy £46 billion? [Laughter.] Yes, £46 billion. Will he give an outright commitment that the Bill will not drive British business out of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Clarke: My short answer is that that is total nonsense, as I have told the British Chambers of

Commerce. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that on our website, we go through the BCC figures; they are nonsense. We also do not accept the charge that e-commerce will be driven out of the country, although I emphasise that we have entered very close dialogue with the industry to try to ensure full agreement. A requirement for the Act to work effectively will be close working with business. We are extremely conscious of that at every level.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that people who oppose the Bill are playing right into the hands of some of the most evil criminals on this planet? Are not charges already imposed in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Sweden and France for internet service providers in this field?

Mr. Clarke: I half agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to identify the benefits to crime of the way in which the internet can operate and we need to contest it. Examples of his point are clear. In 1996–97, through using such surveillance, there were 1,200 arrests, and the seizure of drugs with a street value of more than £600 million and of more than 450 firearms. I only half agree with my hon. Friend because although some people are motivated in the way that he described, some are partners in dialogue—I mentioned business in this context—who are worried about the process, and it is incumbent on us as a Government to work closely with them. I do not impugn their motives, although I impugn the motives of some of those who have made some of the arguments.

Jackie Ballard: Given the worries about which the Minister has just spoken, and the increasing concerns of Members of both Houses of Parliament and ordinary, law-abiding citizens who use the internet, will he tell us what changes he intends to make to the Bill?

Mr. Clarke: We are looking at two or three specific changes. The first is to make explicit issues on cost, of the kind with which I dealt in answer to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). The second is to consider definitions of certain aspects of collection of communications data about which questions have been raised. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary commented on that last week. The third is to make more explicit in the Bill the fact that we are principally requiring plain text rather than any encryption key in order to get the data that we want, about which there has been some concern. A number of those points will arise during the third day's consideration of the Bill in Committee in the other place.

Asylum Seekers (Housing)

Mr. Peter L. Pike: If he will make a statement on the problems being experienced with housing asylum seekers in the areas to which they are being dispersed. [126127]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The arrangements for dispersing asylum seekers are working well. As of 9 June, 2,650 asylum seekers had been dispersed to national asylum support service


accommodation around the country. All accommodation has to meet strict criteria and is inspected on our behalf by independent property surveyors.

Mr. Pike: Is my hon. Friend absolutely certain that there have been all necessary discussions with local authorities and health authorities on arrangements for receiving dispersed asylum seekers? Is she absolutely certain that cowboy landlords are not charging exorbitant rents for appalling properties—despite what she has said about accommodation?

Mrs. Roche: I know of my hon. Friend's concerns in these matters and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met his council leader and officers and, indeed, written to him. I am confident that we ensure that all the proper procedures are in place for inspection and consultation. However, I shall keep a close eye on the matter and, if a specific meeting is needed, I shall be delighted to arrange it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister clarify the circular dated today which the Home Secretary sent to all Members of Parliament? It states, in paragraph 3:
A central feature of the new … arrangements involves … dispersal … from London and the South East,
and continues, in paragraph 5:
Our policy is to disperse away from London and Kent.
Does she appreciate that that will cause confusion and depression in places like Southend-on-Sea—which recently had the pleasure of a visit by her—which are in the south-east, but not in Kent?

Mrs. Roche: I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's points. I was delighted to undertake my visit to his constituency and I found it useful. We are dispersing those who seek asylum away from hard-pressed areas in London and the south-east, and the areas to which people are currently being dispersed are concentrated in the north-west, the north-east and Scotland.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I urge my hon. Friend to keep a close eye on the workings of the national asylum support service? It recently entered into an agreement to provide accommodation on one hotel site in Leicester for 400 people, but the local authority was not informed at an early stage. Will she ensure that there is adequate dialogue between NASS and local authorities, so that they are able to provide the services needed to support those 400 new people in Leicester?

Mrs. Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's points. I assure him that I hold regular meetings with NASS. Not only do we make sure that local authorities are informed through the regional consortium—that is why we encourage local authorities to sign contracts with us—but we notify health authorities as well.

Mr. Owen Paterson: How many asylum seekers disappear while on dispersal?

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman is confused. Dispersal relates to when asylum seekers make application to NASS

because they are destitute. The system replaces the shambolic arrangements left by the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman is talking about temporary admission, but that is completely different.

Closed Circuit Television

Mr. Ben Chapman: How much funding his Department will provide in the current financial year to support CCTV schemes. [126128]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Under the crime reduction programme CCTV initiative, we are investing £153 million over three years in new or extended CCTV systems in England and Wales. Nearly £60 million of capital funding has already been allocated to crime and disorder reduction partnerships to support more than 340 CCTV schemes. Partnerships have begun to bid for the remaining £90 million under a rolling programme of funding that will run until the end of 2001. Details of any new CCTV awards will continue to be posted on the Home Office website.

Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend will be aware that several CCTV schemes in the Wirral have been or are about to be approved and that such schemes are effective in reducing crime. However, there is a related issue of the trading environment: for example, in my constituency, the shopkeepers and licensees of New Ferry are collaborating to improve the trading environment in a small community shopping area; they believe that CCTV's effect on youth theft and vandalism, general crime and night-time disturbances would be such that local people's shopping facilities could be much improved. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the money made available so far is welcome, far more needs to be made available, so that areas such as New Ferry can tackle such issues?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which explains why the guidelines for the further rolling-round that we published in February emphasise, first, the need for joint bids from local authorities and local business, because there are significant economies of scale to be made, and secondly, the need to go for schemes on small shopping precincts outside the city centres, which have not always been economic. The guidelines on the web set out clearly how that can be achieved. I hope that my hon. Friend's crime reduction partnership in the Wirral will produce proposals which meet that point and the points that he raised in his question.

Mr. Edward Leigh: CCTV cameras are quite effective against young vandals, but if the young vandals were not on the streets in the first place, that would be even more effective. How many child curfew orders have been issued since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998? If, as I suspect, the answer is none, how great has the impact of such orders been in keeping young vandals off the street? Is this a new example of zero tolerance, or perhaps of the third way? The first way is to do something, the second way is to do nothing, and the third way—the Government's way—is to do nothing but put a spin on it.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's cynicism is uncharacteristic. It is unfortunate that the various


anti-social behaviour orders and child curfew orders—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many?] There have been very few. Those orders have been opposed down the line by the Opposition. We are doing our best, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described, to roll out the anti-social behaviour orders. CCTV is an effective weapon to help to ensure that young people in all areas of towns and cities behave in a social way. We intend to keep on funding that programme to a much greater extent than the Conservatives ever did.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the guidelines issued by the Data Protection Commissioner for the use of CCTV have largely allayed the fears expressed by some people about their operation? Will he accept the congratulations of people in Beeston and Kimberley in my constituency, who greatly welcome the imminent arrival of the cameras as a major step forward in combating youth crime in our area?

Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend says, some of the doubts that existed have been allayed by the guidelines. I know that many constituents of many hon. Members are delighted by the CCTV schemes that we have introduced and paid for, which are setting about reducing crime and disorder consistently and effectively.

Public Safety Radio Communications Project

Miss Anne McIntosh: What estimate he has made of the impact on police budgets of the public safety radio communications project. [126129]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Once the service is fully established across England and Wales, the cost of the public safety radio communications service is estimated to be £157 million per year at today's prices for the police service. Currently, that represents about 2 per cent. of police authority budgets in England and Wales. In addition, there will be costs to forces in buying control room and radio terminal equipment and so on, but many of those costs would be incurred irrespective of the public safety radio communications service. The allocation of £50 million from the capital modernisation fund to the service, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in September 1999, will go towards reducing the cost of the service during the first few years of operation.

Miss McIntosh: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he share my concern that although the Government have agreed with North Yorkshire police to top-slice its budget, the rurality factor should be taken into account? It must be recognised that the new equipment cannot be shared in sparsely populated rural areas such as North Yorkshire. Is the Minister aware that 16 per cent. of North Yorkshire's operational budget is currently spent on retirement pensions, and that 50 per cent. of it goes on early retirement for police officers? Will that also be taken into account in future budgets?

Mr. Clarke: I have discussed with the chief constable of North Yorkshire—the force covering the hon. Lady's constituency—the important benefit of the national police project to her constituency, perhaps more so than to many other police authorities, because of the geography of the

area. The police force recognises what we are doing. On rurality, may I point out to the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend announced 10 days or so ago an extra £15 million for rural forces in the current year to meet some of the costs associated with rural forces? The Government can say that we are doing a great deal for rural forces and will continue to do so.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: Now that Ray Mallon and seven Cleveland officers have been cleared of any criminal charges, what will the Government do to bring Operation Lancet to an end? It has been a great drain on public resources, on the police budget—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but that does not relate to the question at all.

Police Manpower (Essex)

Mr. Simon Burns: How many police officers were (a) in place and (b) funded on (i) 31 March 2000 and (ii) 31 March 1997 in Essex. [126130]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Essex police had 2,961 police officers on 31 March 1997, which I understand was in line with their budgeted plans. I have been informed by the chief constable that the Essex police had 2,809 police officers on 31 March 2000 compared with a budgeted figure of 2,859. It is for chief officers to determine the number of officers to be funded within the overall resources available to them. Specific funding is being made available to Essex under the crime fighting fund to enable it to recruit 103 officers in addition to existing plans over the coming two years.

Mr. Burns: However likeable the Home Secretary is, it would help if he would cut some of the flannel and spin, because the figures show that there are fewer police officers in Essex now than in March 1997. Does he accept that, notwithstanding the 103 funded officers for the future about whom he spoke, his announcement on Friday of the increased money for the Metropolitan police has produced the double whammy that people in Essex who want to be police officers will be drawn to the Met to serve because they will earn more money, and existing officers in the Essex constabulary will resign and move to the Met because the financial differentiation will be £6,000?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's initial criticism was not well placed. I answered the questions that he asked, and just that.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Shame.

Mr. Straw: That is always my aim in the House, from wherever questions come, as it is my hon. Friend's too.
I was delighted to announce to the House last Friday that, from next week, Metropolitan police officers appointed after 1 September 1994 will receive an increase of £3,300 in their allowance, because there have been specific recruitment and retention problems for those


groups of Met officers in London. We understand the concerns of police forces in the outer London area and in the home counties. My hon. Friend and I have had a number of discussions with the chief officers concerned—of Thames Valley police in my case, and Essex and a number of other services—

Mr. Nick Hawkins: And Surrey.

Mr. Straw: And Surrey.

Mr. Oliver Heald: And Hertfordshire.

Mr. Straw: And Hertfordshire, and Kent.

Sir Patrick Cormack: And Staffordshire.

Mr. Straw: Staffordshire is not a home county.
We have told all those chief officers that we understand their concern, but that we need detailed evidence from them on recruitment problems of the same kind that we had from the Metropolitan police service in respect of its problems. If we have that evidence we can take steps to deal with the problem.

Human Genome Project

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the human genome project.
This morning the Wellcome Trust and the Sanger centre in Cambridge announced, together with their international partners, that the initial stage of the work to map the human genome had been completed. The work, which has been carried out in 16 centres across the world, has led to 85 per cent. of the human genome being accurately deciphered. Work in hand and still to be finally checked will lead to 97 per cent. of the genome being read.
That is an enormous scientific achievement and represents the culmination of an international project which will be of benefit to all humanity. The project has been a co-operative venture from the start and I should like to pay tribute to the central role of the United States and the other countries—Japan, France, Germany and China—with which we have worked to achieve our goal.
The international collaborative nature of this work stems from co-operation which began in the 1980s between John Sulston, working at the MRC laboratory of molecular biology, and Robert Waterston from Washington university. They first produced an outline of the genome for a particular type of worm, called C elegans. But their ultimate goal was to sequence the worm's genome in its entirety. Their success proved that sequencing the human genome, while far more ambitious, would be possible in principle. However, with the techniques available in the 1980s, it would have taken more than 1,500 scientists an entire century to complete the work.
John Sulston was key to the plan to set up the Sanger centre in 1992 with funds from the Wellcome Trust. The centre is named after Fred Sanger, who received his second Nobel prize for his pioneering work on the sequencing of DNA. The centre has played an important role in the development of the new and faster sequencing technique, which has led to the completion of the work far earlier than originally foreseen.
I pay particular tribute to the wisdom and foresight of the Wellcome Trust in largely funding the work in this country. British science is very fortunate that it has been supported by the huge resources of the Wellcome Trust, and that those resources have been used to such good effect.
The structure of DNA was discovered in Cambridge in 1953 by Francis Crick and Jim Watson, by their fellow Nobel prize winner Maurice Wilkins, and by Rosalind Franklin, who tragically died in 1957, before the Nobel prize was awarded. At that time, no one would have believed that by 2000, almost the whole of the human genome would have been sequenced. It is fitting that almost 50 years later, scientists at Cambridge should again be involved.
We should not underestimate the magnitude of that achievement. There are 3 billion chemical building blocks or bases in the human genome, packaged into 23 pairs of chromosomes. The order of those bases forms the code of life, providing instructions for the genes that help to make each of us who we are, and give us our particular

characteristics. Our genes make us susceptible or resistant to certain diseases, and affect the way in which we react to different medicines.
Now that we have the sequence information, we shall be able to identify why changes in the usual code can lead to the development of diseases. Ultimately we should have a better understanding of the causes of major killers such as cancer and heart disease, and be able to develop effective treatments for them. We also have the prospect of personalised medicine, which means that both the course of treatment and the drugs prescribed will be tailored to suit the individual's genetic make-up.
It is because of the enormous potential of the human genome for increasing our understanding of human disease that in March 2000, President Bill Clinton and the Prime Minister announced in a joint statement that they would like to see "unencumbered access" to the sequence data.
President Clinton and the Prime Minister held a video conference this afternoon. They agreed that the common property of the human genome should be used freely for the common good of the human race, but that the implementation should not be abused, as the Prime Minister has said, to make man his own creator or to invade individual privacy.
As we proceed to use the new knowledge that the structure of the genome offers us, it is inevitable that a range of social and ethical questions will arise. We need to be sensitive to those issues, and to the different views and values that individuals will hold, and we need to debate them openly. The Human Genetics Commission, which we have recently set up to advise us on strategic developments in human genetics, will have an important role in that process and will consult widely. It will also, as far as it can, look into the future and advise us of the important issues that may arise.
There will be a continued need for international co-operation. President Clinton and the Prime Minister also spoke about that today, and concluded that the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other Governments throughout the world will now need to work together to develop the ethical, moral and legal framework that will ensure that this scientific leap forward benefits the many not the few, and strengthens all societies.
The sequencing of the genome is the end of one journey, but it is also the start of another. The Government are committed to being involved in that new journey. In the last comprehensive spending review, we increased the budgets of the relevant research councils by £142 million over the period to 2002 for research into human genetics.
I believe that in years to come, people will look back on this day and see it as the key to humanity's understanding of itself. We congratulate all the scientists involved on their remarkable achievement, and wish them every future success in taking that exciting work forward.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I thank the Minister for making her statement available to me earlier this afternoon; it is one of those statements about which there is genuine cross-party delight. We all understand its importance and we join the Minister in congratulating the international collaboration on the work, and especially British scientists on their work over the decades. I have an appointment, which has been in my diary for some time, to visit the Sanger centre next Tuesday, and I am genuinely looking forward to that.
I should declare an interest—as many hon. Members will—in that I have honorary positions with the National Autistic Society and the Alzheimer's Disease Society. Others will have their own personal interests. We are overwhelmingly encouraged by the news, and I hope that the project will come to fruition. I join the Minister in stating clearly that we will need to issue a word of caution to the general public so that expectations raised by today's marvellous announcement will not lead people to think that there will be an immediate solution for many conditions. However, the speed of progress in the past couple of years has been first class, and welcome.
There is a challenge to Governments. Will the Minister outline how the Government see the question of the cost of some of the treatments and medications that are likely to come from the research? Some will be disproportionately high for the few when we see them in reality in a few years' time. How is that influencing the hon. Lady's thinking and that of the Government in terms of treatments being available across the board, when science such as this creates new opportunities, with attendant costs?
The Minister announced that the United States and the United Kingdom have today jointly said that they hope that there will be "unencumbered access" to sequence data. How will that be affected by the new global agreement on patent law to which the UK and the US—if not all EU countries—are signatories? How does the Minister see the future in terms of patenting in this context?

Ms Hewitt: I thank the hon. Lady for her response and her questions. I agree that it is immensely important not to give the public the impression that there will be immediate solutions and treatments for terrible illnesses as a result of today's announcement. The hon. Lady asked about the costs of new treatments that will be developed on the basis of the human genome analysis. We have recently announced a record level of new funding for the NHS, which will give us the basis for expanding the range of treatments available to individuals.
It is worth adding that we should not assume that all the new treatments that science will make available will necessarily be more expensive than those available now. Some may be cheaper, not least because they will be more effective and better targeted than those available now. Also, we have established the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness—[HON. MEMBERS: "Excellence."] I am grateful for that correction. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different treatments.
On patent protection and the crucial issue of making human genome data freely available, we have clear rules in the UK—soon to be reinforced by the EU directive on biotechnology patents—that will ensure that basic gene sequence information will not be patented and will continue to be available to all researchers and scientists. Companies, of course, will seek patent protection for inventions of their own that are based upon that freely available genetic discovery. That is necessary if the new diagnostic tools and therapies are to be developed. I believe that we have the right regime here in the UK which is soon to be enforced across the EU.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Although my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has

had a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate on the human genome, could we have some indication that, at least in the autumn, the Commons will be able to discuss this extremely important subject properly? In the meantime, might it not be helpful to have a Green Paper setting out the complex patent position? It is all very well for the President and the Prime Minister to say that they want open access—I am sure they do. But what is the likely position in the American courts, where the opposition to this is determined to do what some us think is quite intolerable, and patent the alphabet?
My final question is very complex and should be addressed at an early stage. What information will be made available to insurance companies? Some of my student contemporaries who worked on this matter, such as Jim Watson, would be the first to be appalled if the information were used for purposes of exploitation by insurance companies. That was not what those people were about.

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend has raised some extremely important points. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is in her place, has heard his request for a debate, and I am sure that she will consider it. There are several outstanding patent applications in the US, and I understand that the US patents office is currently reviewing its policy on patents and biotechnology. As I have already said, we think that it is enormously important to get the regime right and to continue to ensure free and open access to the basic alphabet of the human genome. Therefore, we will keep a close eye on developments in the US.
My hon. Friend also mentioned insurance, and there is real concern that we could end up with a genetic underclass of people who find it impossible to get insurance or employment because genetic tests predict that they might develop some disease. We want to prevent the unfair and inappropriate use of genetic information, and the new Genetics and Insurance Committee will allow the industry to use only specific genetic test results that are relevant to the setting of insurance premiums. This year, the GAIC will assess tests for inherited conditions that are covered by the Association of British Insurers voluntary code of practice on genetic testing.

Dr. Evan Harris: The Liberal Democrats share the delight at the Minister's announcement of the exciting news from the scientists in Cambridge and the US. Indeed, her statement reminded me of the excitement of genetics as I studied the subject at the medical school in my constituency in Oxford, which is full of talented geneticists. Many of the concerns that I wished to raise have already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but on the question of genetics and insurance, does the Minister understand that people are concerned that the Government's position is too close to that of the insurance companies, and that there should be a moratorium on insurance companies being able to require individuals to reveal information about their genetic tests, which should be used for health purposes, not insurance ones?
Does the Minister recognise that the concentration of NICE on new treatments rather than existing treatments creates a barrier—unique to this country—to the introduction of radical new treatments that may at first appear difficult to afford? Drug and other companies may


choose to innovate in other countries, because of the barriers set up by NICE. Does she recognise the concerns that exist in the scientific community that investment such as that which the Wellcome Trust made in the project might not be able to be repeated in public science today, unless further investment is made in the science base in the comprehensive spending review? The careers of young scientists in this country must also be nurtured, not abandoned.
Will the Minister also accept a word of caution that none of the new and exciting developments will be able to deal with much of the ill health that occurs in the developing world? We must ensure that we offer innovation and funding to those areas as well.

Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I acknowledge the fact that he and his colleagues share our excitement. On a more personal note, his father was, until recently, the distinguished dean of medicine at the Leicester university school of medicine, with which I have had some connection.
Insurance companies cannot now require anybody to take a genetic test, and that is as it should be. However, we have asked the Human Genetics Commission, recently established by us, to consider the wider social and ethical issues related to the use of personal genetic data in insurance and in employment. We shall continue to monitor developments in human genetics, and the possible need for a change in legislation to guard against genetic discrimination.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the possibly prohibitive cost of medicines based upon human genome research. I stress that we should not assume that these new treatments and diagnostic tools will necessarily be more expensive than those now available. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is about promoting—not inhibiting—the take-up of effective medicine, and about getting rid of the present lottery of prescribing by postcode from which we suffer.
The hon. Gentleman raised the importance of strengthening our already excellent science base. As I have said, in the last spending review we substantially increased investment in the science base, specifically to ensure that there is full exploitation of the extraordinary potential of the human genome study.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: The Minister drew attention to the positive implications for health care of the finding of information on the human genome. Is the ministerial taskforce on science discussing the implications for all Government Departments of human genome information? In particular, is the Department of Health closely considering the implications for the reorganisation of primary care, if the national health service is to be able in due course to ensure that the information is used in the best possible way to inform people's treatment?

Ms Hewitt: Yes, the ministerial taskforce is and will be considering the implications of those developments. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health are also considering the implications for the future organisation of primary care. I stress that we do not expect immediate developments in the treatment and diagnosis of disease. As we look further ahead beyond the next

decade, we need to take into account the social and ethical implications, and the implications for health care, of these developments. I am pleased that the Human Genetics Commission has been jointly established by, and will jointly report to, the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I add my warmest congratulations to my constituents at the Sanger centre near Cambridge on their achievements announced today. My constituents there and at the laboratory of molecular biology, which is also in my constituency, next to Addenbrooke's hospital, will be aware that there is now an important job to do, of exploitation of the human genome. In effect, we have a map but we do not know yet where the treasure is buried. There is a great deal of discovery to be done to find it.
The LMB, and the Wellcome Trust at Hinxton, are sites around which a biotechnology industry cluster will develop. The Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends have made several pronouncements on promoting biotechnology cluster development, especially in the Cambridge area. What additional measures is she now proposing that will be geared specifically to utilising the development, given that the prospects for expansion at Hinxton are now very good, and likewise at Addenbrooke's hospital?

Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the exciting plans that the regional development agency for the Eastern Region is helping to co-ordinate for building upon the existing biotechnology-based cluster in and around Cambridge, and expanding it into a triangle of excellence between Cambridge, Norwich and Ipswich. My noble Friend the Minister for Science is working specifically on the further development of the biotechnology cluster in and around Cambridge. I shall ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman with further information in response to his question.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I am sure that my hon. Friend will share my concern about the poor reporting of this important science over a number of years, from the ridiculous headlines about Dolly the sheep right through to today. Will she discuss that with her colleagues, particularly in the Department for Education and Employment, with a view to using this opportunity to increase the public understanding of science? This is a matter of massive importance, and we must not allow people to go down the road of thinking that we have instant cures at our fingertips, or to be misled by some of the ridiculous stories.

Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree about the importance of high-quality rather than over-excitable reporting on scientific issues. I am glad to say that Geoffrey Watts, a distinguished journalist and the presenter of BBC Radio 4's "Leading Edge", is one of the members of the Human Genetics Commission. I hope that such excellent scientific programmes, and at least some of the scientific reporting in the daily newspapers, will give the public a rather better briefing on the enormous implications of the discoveries that have been announced today.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Minister is right to signal the leading role that the United Kingdom


science base and UK-based scientists have played. I hope that the friendly relationship between President Clinton and Tony Blair is one in which the Prime Minister fully understands the implications of American policy. When I was a Minister with responsibility for science, when Dolly the sheep was cloned, the first call that I took was from the American special adviser on science to the President, who said that the President wanted quick answers to two questions: could the Americans steal the UK's scheme for a human genetics advisory commission, and why the hell did the Americans not do the science in their country?
The Americans are going to watch very closely to see how the project unrolls, and will try to take a leading part in it. Can the Minister clarify the question of patents? Of course patents should not be taken out on the human genome project and its broad findings, but unless the biotechnology industry can patent applications and innovative steps, there will not be progress in the application of drugs and cures arising from the basic knowledge. That is an important distinction.
Can the Minister help to solve, not simply stress, the problems that we might have with the insurance industry and with employment? One of the exciting things to come out of the project is that people can move into areas of preventive care, and can understand a little about how they might alleviate the effects even of hereditary diseases, because of our better understanding of the total picture of the human genome.

Ms Hewitt: On that second point, I entirely agree about the need to present a balanced picture and to understand the implications both for good and for potential harm.
The hon. Gentleman raised the vital issue of patenting. Under current UK law, human genes in the cells in our bodies cannot be patented. That is clearly right. As I said earlier, a European Communities directive will come into force later this year, establishing the same basic principle right across Europe. It will rightly make it clear that, as is already the case in the United Kingdom, patents will be available only for the invention of new technical solutions. That is also necessary to give companies the incentive that they need to make what may well be very substantial investments in creating new intellectual capital, and of course they will seek to protect those intellectual property rights.

Mr. Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend rightly said that insurance companies cannot require individuals to disclose genetic information, but does she not recognise that as genetic testing develops, there is nothing to stop them inviting people to do so in return for a lower premium? Is it not likely that we will have to find a new way of pooling risk in insurance, if we are to avoid the sort of genetic exclusion that many hon. Members are worried about?

Ms Hewitt: I think that I said earlier that the Association of British Insurers already has in place a voluntary code of practice on genetic testing. It is as concerned as we are to get this right, in order to ensure that people are not discriminated against and unfairly prevented from getting insurance, but that insurance companies can continue to do their job properly. That is one of the major issues that we will ask the Human

Genetics Commission to consider and advise us on, as they examine in greater detail the implications of the greater availability and accuracy of genetic testing.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I join the Minister in welcoming the announcement of joint publication by the American and British researchers, and I agree with her declaration that the work is about six sevenths of the way through. Clearly, there is much more work to come.
Applications for patents have been submitted in the United States. The Minister said that no such applications would be granted in this country, but will she say whether any have been made? Will Government funds be needed to oppose patent applications, given the implications that will arise if a patent is granted in the United States? Will she join me in saying that there would be no objection to a patent on a diagnostic test or a treatment, but that we would object if such a patent blocked the introduction of better and cheaper tests and treatments? Is not the point of patent protection that it allows advance and progress, as opposed to freezing research and allowing no further change?

Ms Hewitt: I have already set out the legal position in this country. I am not sure whether applications for patents in respect of the raw data have been made here, but no such patent would succeed. Applications for patents on the raw data have been made and are pending in the USA, but the US Patent and Trade Mark Office is reviewing its policy in this area.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the joint statement made in March by President Clinton and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
To realise the full promise of this research, raw fundamental data on the human genome, including the human DNA sequence and its variations, should be made freely available to scientists everywhere. Unencumbered access to this information will promote discoveries that will reduce the burden of disease, improve health around the world, and enhance the quality of life for all humankind.
In the video conference that they held half an hour or so ago, President Clinton and my right hon. Friend reiterated their commitment to open access to the data.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I add my congratulations to all those involved in this great discovery, not just in Cambridge and in America, but all over the world. I liken the research to a marathon: the starting gun was fired in 1953 with the discovery of the double helix, and today we are just passing the first mile-post.
I believe that future research will depend on three things. First, finance will be needed, as the pace of research will increase from now on. Secondly, the crowd must be kept cheering, so it is vital that the general public are kept informed and on the side of the scientists. Thirdly, legislators must keep a close eye on the race, in case the rules have to be changed from time to time. Does my hon. Friend agree that those three elements are essential if the research is to be kept going?

Ms Hewitt: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I stress that the most recent comprehensive spending review increased the budgets of the relevant research councils to ensure that research into human genetics could proceed. Further announcements will be made when the current


spending review is complete. However, much of the next wave of research into how the information can be exploited for diagnostic testing and treatment will come from the private sector.

Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister rightly paid tribute to the work of the Wellcome Foundation in making possible the British effort towards mapping the human genome. In the United States, commercial investment in the Celera company has pushed the project forward. That company appears to take an aggressive stance, and it is clear that it wants to hang on to certain parts of the intellectual property in this matter. What discussions has the Minister's Department had with that company to establish whether its approach is compatible with the United Kingdom approach that she outlined? Here, the approach is to make the information open and available to all scientists, but that does not match the impression that I get of Celera's attitude.

Ms Hewitt: It is fair to say that the competition from Celera has helped to speed up the work of the human genome project. In this field, as in many others, competition has produced real benefits. We will be watching with great interest to see, for instance, what statements have been made today by the director of Celera about the terms on which medical and scientific researchers will have access to the human genome data that they have decoded.
It is also worth saying that because Celera took a different approach to the decoding of the human genome alphabet, there may well be real advantages to come as scientists compare the different alphabets arrived at through the different scientific methods.

Mr. Nigel Beard: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement on a major event in the progress of scientific understanding. What plans are there to publish the benefits of this breakthrough for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and to indicate the regulatory process? In that way, public fears may be answered and reduced, and will not impede the application of this new science, in which Britain excels.

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is worth stressing that we should not expect immediate changes in the treatment or diagnosis of disease as a result of the work that has so far been done by the human genome project. The project has created the genetic map that will provide the foundation for a revolution in medical diagnosis and treatment that is yet to come. We can see, even from the publicity that there has already been about today's announcement, that the public will

soon come to appreciate the extraordinary implications and the scale of importance of the milestone that has been passed today.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister is right to play down expectations of immediate cures. I believe that Gray's "Anatomy" was first published in 1858, but it was some 70 years before people realised the link between the islets of Langerhans and insulin.
Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will take no steps to prevent any further research into human stem cells or similar tissue? That is the key that can open the door to the cures for many dysfunctions, including cancer and other congenital diseases, yet there are many siren voices who argue that any research on human cells should be banned.

Ms Hewitt: I am advised that the chief medical officer's working group is considering that issue. His advice has not yet come to the Government, and we have therefore not yet made a decision.

Dr. Howard Stoate: I add my congratulations to the many scientists internationally who have achieved this wonderful goal today. It has already been likened in importance to the invention of the wheel. However, many right hon. and hon. Members have echoed the real worries surrounding the issue, and I am pleased that the Minister has already accepted that there is the possibility of a genetic underclass. We need to be very careful about how the technology is rolled out.
May I call for an early and swift debate on this matter? Public opinion is quite sensitive at the moment, because of genetically modified foods, BSE and the like. I urge my hon. Friend to ask her ministerial colleagues if we can have a debate as soon as possible on the wide and significant issues raised by this extremely important discovery.

Ms Hewitt: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take notice of that further request for a debate on these important issues.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Are the Government not being uncharacteristically modest about the human genome project? Should they not at least have said a word of praise for the experimental laboratories in Walworth road and Millbank, whose successful trials in human cloning have led to the results that are so evident on the Government Back Benches?

Ms Hewitt: I had hoped that questions on the statement would pass without unfortunate references to human genetic treatment of such a kind. I shall resist following the hon. Gentleman.
If I may clarify the answer that I gave a moment ago, the working group led by the chief medical officer has completed its work, but the Government have not yet made a decision on it.

Point of Order

Sir George Young: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Thursday, the Leader of the House announced that today's business would be a motion on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill followed by consideration of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill. She then spent 40 minutes explaining why a number of important issues raised by myself and other Members could not be discussed because of lack of parliamentary time. You, Madam Speaker, will have noticed that the Order Paper does not contain a motion on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, and that the House has been left with a very light diet indeed. Given all the pressures on parliamentary time, does not today's business represent a missed opportunity?

Madam Speaker: Does the Minister want to raise a further point of order?

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As the right hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made an announcement about a motion for the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill last Thursday. During the course of Friday, we were pleased to receive assurances—both through the usual channels and through wider discussions—that the matter could be concluded satisfactorily without recourse to a guillotine. It is perhaps best for the House to proceed by consensus on matters such as this.

Orders of the Day — Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords] [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): Ito beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.
The Government proposed in the White Paper on the 2001 census, published in March 1999, that a new question on religion should be included in the census in addition to the existing question on ethnic group. An amendment to the Census Act 1920 is necessary because the schedule to the Act, which specifies those matters of which particulars may be required to be stated in census returns, does not currently provide for particulars on religion. This Bill received its Second Reading in the House on 20 June. I commend the resolution to the House.

Mr. Eric Forth: My hopes soared when the Minister rose to move the resolution. Such hopes were unusual in these circumstances and I had hoped that he was setting a precedent. However, I was then profoundly disappointed by the opacity of his announcement. Even the most casual reading of the resolution would tell one that it contains the potential at least for a very large amount of expenditure about which we still know nothing.
For a Treasury Minister to come to the House to ask us to underwrite the expenditure of an unspecified amount is bad enough, but this resolution goes beyond even the usual pronouncements of a money resolution, in two or three important respects. The first is that it states:
for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
That leads us to suppose that we are being asked to sign a blank cheque that could arise not from the Bill as we now know it, but from the Bill which may emerge after its Committee and Report stages. The Government are therefore pushing their luck more than somewhat. It would be bad enough if we knew the text upon which we are being asked to write a blank cheque, but we are now being asked to write a double or triple blank cheque, in that the resolution refers to the Act that may emerge from the parliamentary process that was initiated, not finalised, by the introduction of the Bill. A huge amount of speculation will arise in that respect.
The resolution then adds impertinently that the Government want the House to approve
any increase attributable to the Act.
The formality of the blank cheque has been set before us but, most important, the resolution continues:
in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.
Normally one might not be too alarmed by such a statement, but this is a highly controversial Bill. We discovered that on Second Reading, when the House


divided. Some of my hon. Friends and I expressed considerable disquiet at its content, and that disquiet has not diminished with the passage of time.
The worrying aspect of the seemingly innocuous phrase "under any enactment" arises from the pronouncements of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who is the Bill's supposed promoter, and of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Their pronouncements led to a suspicion that we did not have much of an opportunity to explore on Second Reading. On 20 June, in a text which I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire wrote, because it does not sound like him to me, although I shall accept his assurances if he wants to give them, my hon. Friend said:
If we are to deal with discrimination in the provision of health, housing, schools, welfare and community care services, we require better information. We require better information about baseline figures against which racial disadvantage and social exclusion within particular minority groups can be monitored. This information would be useful in the planning of religious education—
I may come back to that in a moment—and
it would have relevance in the regeneration of inner cities; and I would expect it to aid the very valuable work of voluntary sector religious groups.—[Official Report, 20 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 266.]
That is what my hon. Friend said as reported in Hansard, if I may put it that way, when he was introducing the Bill.
The Minister said later:
The basic reason for collecting such information, however—
that is, information resulting from the census, as it would be altered by the Bill—
is so that it can be used to inform planning, policy and services.—[Official Report, 20 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 305.]
Flowing from all that is not just the suspicion but the near certainty that the mechanism that would be initiated by adding the question to the census that the Bill suggests will, if it has any meaning at all, result in considerable additional expenditure in some areas, not least the planning of religious education. The matter was touched on on Second Reading, and we received no further information. Everyone seems to want to be coy about it. Will the phrase "under any other enactment" in the money resolution lead us to an unspecified and possibly unlimited amount of expenditure across the board of social policy?
I am not sure what "social exclusion" means. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is obviously happy with it as a concept. Perhaps he could explain it to me, if not now, then subsequently. References have also been made to the regeneration of inner cities, no less, and then the Minister tells us that the information will be used to inform planning, policy and services.
So contained within the wording of the Bill as it now is, never mind as it may emerge from Committee and Report, is the potential for considerable extra expenditure.

Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend's frugality is legendary. Do I take it that he thinks that the activities that will flow from the Census (Amendment) Bill could involve every Government Department, without exception? Or can my right hon. Friend think of an exception, and would he care to divulge to the House which Department he thinks would be exempt?

Mr. Forth: I suppose that it is possible that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will escape the clutches of this

ghastly little provision, and perhaps the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend raises an important point because, to go back to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire—
health, housing, schools, welfare and community care services—
the Bill seems to encompass almost the entire range of domestic spending Government Departments, in which case the potential for additional Government expenditure and taxpayer commitment is considerable. If that were not so, there would be no point in including the question in the census.
Hidden within that, as we teased out on Second Reading, is the concept that, as a result of asking people to divulge their religious affiliation voluntarily, Government policy will direct additional funds to some people of some religious affiliations. I assume that if I put "none" in answer to the question on the census form, I would not get much extra money. although that was not made clear. It appears that people of no religious faith will not be very fortunate as a result of the provision.
We seem to be in the dark about whether different elements of the Christian faith would benefit from the process. That seemed to be doubtful from the way Second Reading went. One can only surmise, as has been hinted at—indeed, we have almost been told—that if enough people specify other religious faiths in answer to the question, there will be a policy rush by the Government and, presumably, by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, to direct money to people on the basis of their religious affiliation.
I do not wish to rehearse the matters that we debated on Second Reading: you would not want me to do that, Madam Speaker. No doubt, those matters will come up in Committee and on Report, when we shall discuss them at length as, indeed, we should. I simply wish to make the point that, as a result of the Bill's peculiar circumstances, the wording of the money resolution which, on the face of it, appears to be fairly standard, gives rise to an unusual number of questions about the final form that the Bill will take if it is enacted; and, following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), about the enactments to which the resolution might relate and the sort of commitment that it contains.
Of course, we know nothing about that, as the Government have not told us anything about the extra expenditure that they envisage: either they do not know or they are not telling us.
Yet again, the House is faced with the difficult problem that so often confronts us in relation to money resolutions. We refuse to be a rubber stamp; we regard it as our duty as Members of the House of Commons to extract as much information from the Minister as we can. When the Minister comes to sum up, I hope that he will grace the House with far more information than he was prepared to give in his wholly inadequate introduction.

Mr. Timms: As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested, this a standard form of words for money resolutions. The timing of the money resolution, after Second Reading and before Committee, is standard and familiar.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions about the spending that is envisaged and about costs. The inclusion of the new question is not expected to lead to


an increase in printing or distribution costs. Costs that may arise relate to the processing of additional information that is collected. They cannot be precisely estimated, but we anticipate that they are likely to be about £100,000 for the 2001 census. That is certainly containable within the existing allocation.
Compared with the £203 million that the 2001 census for England and Wales is expected to cost, that additional sum is modest, and represents a good investment in the context of the value that will be gained from the information collected. As the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, demonstrate, that information will help local authorities, health authorities and others to plan services to meet the needs of their current population. Asking a question in future censuses after 2001 may lead to a small increase in the total costs of those censuses, which is another reason why we need the money resolution.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked which enactment the money resolution referred to. The reference is to the Census Act 1920, the schedule of which is being amended by the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

JUDGMENTS

That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

CONTRACTS

That the draft Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 1445), dated 27th May 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 1446), dated 27th May 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

That the draft London Local Authorities (Charges for Stopping Up Orders) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 2

FUNCTIONS

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—
', which inspection shall include consideration of the internal employment practices of the Service with particular reference to equal opportunities issues.'.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
'() inquire into the findings of an Employment Tribunal consequent upon a complaint against the Crown Prosecution Service under the Race Relations Act 1976 or Sex Discrimination Act 1975.'.
No. 3, in page 1, line 23, at end insert—
', which report shall contain a section considering the work done in the year under report by the Service to eliminate discriminatory practices both within the Service's internal employment and management structures and in its prosecution policies and prosecution decisions.'.

Mr. Dismore: I do not normally table amendments to Bills except, perhaps, on Fridays. As I am following the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and given the number of people in the Chamber, there is a sense of déjà vu and a Friday feeling about the debate.
Any criticism that I may make of the Crown Prosecution Service is not meant to be a reflection on the personal commitment of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to combating racism in the CPS and more widely. Similarly, I express no criticism of the position of my noble Friend the Attorney-General. I also have the highest regard for him and his work in this area. However, we need to address two issues in relation to the CPS and racism, both of which are dealt with by the amendments.
The first issue is CPS prosecution policies and practices, which have received a lot of publicity over the years. A great deal of progress has been made on those. The other issue is the service's internal employment policies, which have only recently started to come to public attention. Until I came across a case concerning a constituent, Mrs. Bamieh, a prosecutor with the CPS, I was not as aware as I am now of problems in the CPS, and I have been horrified by some of what I have found out since I started to take an interest in these issues.
A starting point is Sylvia Denman's preliminary report on race discrimination in the CPS. She says:
The CPS Inspectorate … has a limited role in relation to the implementation of equal opportunities practices within the Service … The Inspectorate's stated purpose is "To promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service through a process of inspection and evaluation; the provision of advice, and the identification and promotion of good practice."


Each CPS Area is inspected once every two years. "Equality" is a theme identified as falling within the Inspectorate's "wider remit" for carrying out its Area inspections.
My amendments would move the issue of equality, with particular reference to race, further up the inspectorate's agenda, so that it starts to pay greater heed to some of the problems that have emerged, including those that I am about to describe and those that have been widely canvassed in the media.

Mr. John Bercow: I recognise that the burden of the hon. Gentleman's case is that the CPS is guilty of discrimination on racial grounds, but is he also contending that it is guilty of discrimination on grounds of sex or sexuality, or both?

Mr. Dismore: I make no comment on those issues. There is some suggestion, particularly in the case of Mrs. Bamieh, of discrimination on the grounds of gender. There is more general evidence in the media of possible discrimination on the grounds suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but that is not the thrust of my argument. The evidence that I have come across relates primarily to issues of race, and that is what I intend to focus on. That is not to say that I give the CPS a clean bill of health on the other issues, but I do not seek to make a case about them today.
There has been progress on the prosecutions policy. The 1997–98 annual report of the racial incident monitoring scheme showed that 1,506 cases were sent to the CPS for prosecution and were identified as racial incidents, and 1,324 of those were prosecuted, which is an increase of 10 per cent. on the previous year. The CPS identified 63 per cent. of cases as racial incidents, and the police identified only 37 per cent. of cases as such, so the CPS has a good record of spotting the cases in question. Prosecutors highlighted racial features to the courts in 85 per cent. of the cases prosecuted, and the courts increased the sentence in 22 per cent. of those cases.
In 1999, a Home Office publication, "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System", highlighted the suggestion that
compared with white defendants, the CPS discontinued a higher proportion of cases involving black defendants on evidential grounds and were more likely to reduce charges …
Progress is being made.
The CPS response to the Lawrence inquiry made it clear that all prosecution advocates should know that they should never accept a plea of guilty on condition that evidence of a racist motivation is excluded. That is a welcome development, as is the work by the CPS in multi-agency panels in the community which involve the police, the probation service and local authorities.
That is all very good news, as is the report that was published by a university of Hull researcher, Dr. Mhlanga, last October. That seemed to suggest that defendants from ethnic minorities are not receiving a harsher deal than white defendants. Against that must be balanced the Denman report's comments on the university of Hull work which suggest that the CPS may simply be redressing the balance in respect of action taken by the police. There is concern among CPS ethnic minority lawyers about the suggestion that there might still be discrimination against black and Asian defendants. The problem was again highlighted last year in Judge Gerald

Butler's report on CPS decisions about prosecutions arising from deaths in custody. That is all that I shall say on prosecution policy because, although such mixed evidence exists, progress is being made.
4.30 pm
Under amendment No. 1, I suggest that the inspectorate should highlight in its report the progress that has been made to eliminate discriminatory practices from prosecution policy and decisions. That would be a useful tool to allow progress on prosecution policy to be monitored. It would perhaps provide an additional spur to those in charge at the CPS and down the chain of prosecutors, and ensure that not only the policies on which they act, but the individual decisions that they take, would be non-discriminatory. It would be welcome and beneficial if the inspectorate were asked to prepare such submissions for its report.
As I have said, my main concern is less about prosecution policies than about CPS internal employment policies, which is what I address primarily in amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I am concerned that, although there is increasing evidence of discriminatory policies and practices in the CPS, its management seems not to have taken them on board as well it perhaps should. That is why the inspectorate should be charged with a much stronger role in overseeing such matters. We should be satisfied that it would re-examine them. That would encourage management to get their act together and to report progress in the annual report.
This is a serious issue. On 11 May, The Guardian reported that there have been no fewer than 22 employment tribunal claims against the Crown Prosecution Service since 1993. Three cases were decided last year, all of which involved my constituent, Mrs. Bamieh. A case involving Mrs. Amin was decided the previous year. The Commission for Racial Equality referred in its 1997 annual report to the complaints about discrimination in the CPS that it had received from ethnic minority banisters and solicitors. In its 1998 annual report, the commission said that it continued to receive complaints from ethnic minority staff about unequal access to promotion opportunities. An employment tribunal took the unusual step of referring specifically to the CRE's powers of investigation to address some of the wider issues. If the inspectorate were charged with properly investigating such issues, there might be an additional reason why the CRE should not have to investigate the CPS, but I shall return to the CRE's role shortly.
Mrs. Amin's case was decided in 1998. Four days later, she was relocated against her will and claimed that she had been victimised. Her complaint was ultimately supported. My constituent Mrs. Bamieh has brought four cases against the CPS so far, one of which was settled. I understand that the others went to hearings. She was subjected to discrimination even while her cases were under way. One of her cases last year arose out of the CPS's failure properly to consider her for promotion. She went before a promotion board on 18 February 1999, and was told on 26 February that she had passed. In the meantime, in March and April 1999 an employment tribunal heard the case arising from the failure to promote her previously, but no decision was promulgated. On 19 April 1999, she was given feedback by the Director


of Public Prosecutions himself. That was after the evidence had been taken and the tribunal had heard her case, but before it had given a ruling.
The DPP said to her—it is what he admits to having said:
If you now obtain a promotion, you will be seen as a trouble maker rewarded. If you did not, you would feel you were being punished for being a trouble maker.
That betrays the fact that there is the wrong sort of attitude at the top of the CPS. By any stretch of the imagination, that is potentially a discriminatory, if not victimising, statement by the DPP. I for one am very concerned that although the Minister may be doing all he can to eliminate discrimination within the CPS, we may still have a problem with the management. The Denman report identified that the issues raised by employment tribunals are not being addressed. That is why I suggest that the inspectorate should have the role of inquiring into tribunal findings.
The tribunal that examined Mrs. Bamieh's case gave its decision on 8 June 1999. It found unanimously that she had been discriminated against and victimised. She had made two previous applications: in 1995 and 1997. Two cases involving co-applicants, Mr. Shah and Mr. Navapurkar, had been settled. They arose out of the conduct of the same promotion board.
The tribunal found that the promotion board conducted its interviews and marking system subjectively; it abandoned the guidelines that it had been given; it failed to give full account to performance reviews; it failed to keep a proper record of its discussions; and it did not fully mark Mrs. Bamieh's performance. One of the people on the board was intemperate towards her and failed to mark on that very question, which led to the remark about which she complained. His notes were marked with the words "extra care". The tribunal found that that was simply a reference to her previous tribunal cases. It found that she had suffered a detriment, and that she had been victimised in the way that she had been treated. The inference was that the reason for that was her race.
I have quoted only briefly from the tribunal judgment. It is a full decision. It seems that the CPS management has yet to take on board the lessons from those conclusions. My amendment suggests that such decisions should be subjected to study by the inspectorate. That would be a good way in which to try to take that issue forward.
After or around the time of the judgment, the DPP spoke to a meeting of ethnic minority lawyers. He said in response to a question from my constituent—why were people with "racist minds" still in senior positions—that he preferred finding "non-confrontational ways" of dealing with staff. He added:
Every offence, whether it be an offence of a racist kind or any other, has to be looked at in the round … The CPS can ill-afford to lose lawyers of real talent.
In the context of what has been going on in the CPS, that comment was disturbing to my constituent and to many other ethnic minority staff within the CPS because, again, it does not seem to show that the people at the top have taken on board the lessons from the race awareness training that they had, or should have had, or the real need for reform.
In May 1999, in an article in The Lawyer magazine, the DPP said
I have conceded previously that the CPS is far from perfect—
that goes without saying—
but I do not believe it is "inherently racist".
That goes in the face of all the evidence that has come out and the conclusions of the Denman report.
To add insult to injury, three of the people who were involved in that employment tribunal case were later promoted. Those are the sort of issues that the CPS inspectorate should look into. It should look into why the three people who were directly involved in the complaint to the employment tribunal, and whose role was examined by the tribunal, were thereafter promoted in preference to the complainant, who should have been promoted in the first place.
If the inspectorate is serious about its role of looking at the way in which the CPS operates, that is exactly the sort of issue that it should look at. Why are the people whom the employment tribunal effectively found guilty—in the general sense—of direct or indirect discrimination promoted, while my constituent, who was found worthy of promotion—the employment tribunal found that she should have been promoted—is denied promotion?
That is a serious issue which is yet to be addressed by the CPS management, but could be addressed by the inspectorate in studying the conclusions of employment tribunals, as suggested by amendment No. 2. It could ultimately, I hope, come to conclusions, which it could refer to in the annual report—which is suggested by amendment No. 3—in order to deal with those criticisms.
I mentioned the role of the Commission for Racial Equality, which was planning to hold a formal investigation into the CPS and its employment role. Unfortunately, that seems not to be going ahead. That goes back to my point about the need for the CPS inspectorate to adopt an on-going monitoring role on such issues rather than the CRE conducting a one-off, big-hit investigation.
On 28 July, the CPS published an equality statement, and there has been a plethora of similar statements and policy documents since. None the less, the problems continue. I refer briefly to the second employment tribunal decision last year for my constituent Mrs. Bamieh. Again it was found that she had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of her race and sex while employed at the Artillery Row branch. I raised the issue with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General during Question Time on 21 October last year. In reply, he rightly referred to the equality statement and the setting up of the equality committee to promote a programme of change. He continued:
An action plan on race will be drawn up by the end of the year. The selection and appointment of a new diversity manager is in hand.—[Official Report, 21 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 568.]
All those issues need to be considered by the CPS inspectorate, especially the appointment of the diversity manager, for reasons to which I shall shortly come.
Some race awareness training has been introduced, but it is generally accepted that it is inadequate. The CRE announced that it was no longer to conduct its inquiry solely on the basis of the Sylvia Denman inquiry, to which I have just referred and on which I will need to comment again.
The last employment tribunal decision that I shall mention was that of 31 January, again for my constituent Mrs. Bamieh, which resulted in the tribunal awarding her £39,000, or thereabouts, in compensation and being ordered to change its policies on the awarding of temporary, acting-up posts of prosecution team leaders.
The aggravating factors identified by the employment tribunal are entirely damning and ought to be looked into by somebody. My concern, which is supported by Mrs. Denman's conclusions, is that the CPS management simply does not seem to be addressing many of the issues. If the management is not able to address them, who can? The answer must be the CPS inspectorate, as suggested in amendment No. 1.
The aggravating factors included the management's intemperate attitude and the scorn with which my constituent was treated; allegations that she was lying;
the … decision which it is now clear lay behind all
the CPS' dealings with her, that it expected her to leave and would negotiate only on that basis; the
publication of a newsletter proposing … a meeting
which never happened;
the hollowness of an apology
that she received; failure to take her complaint seriously; and the absence of any constructive system on the part of the respondents. The tribunal found that the conduct of the CPS had
fallen below that which we would have expected of a corner shop,
and that the CPS wished to
rub her face in the dirt.
Those are very serious findings. They have not been properly addressed by the CPS because my constituent still believes that she has been discriminated against. If the management—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must maintain a careful division between advancing a particular case, for which there are other devices in the House, and using it to supply supplementary evidence to back up his amendments. I have a feeling that he has steered a little too far into the individual case. He must confine his remarks, which are otherwise becoming repetitious, to the amendments.

Mr. Dismore: I had hoped that I could illustrate my case, but may have done so in a little too much detail and take your point on board, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
4.45 pm
The Denman report neatly pulls together all the issues. The Director of Public Prosecutions' response to the report states:
This is a hard-hitting report which makes uncomfortable reading for all managers in the CPS.
I hope that he includes himself in their number. In respect of the issues that I believe the CPSI should examine, the report addresses the reasons why ethnic minority staff are
seriously under-represented, both in the higher administrative grades and the higher lawyer grades
in the CPS, adding that:
No cogent historical explanation for the under-representation of ethnic minority staff at senior grades has been put forward by management

and that, and in certain geographical areas, ethnic minority personnel are seriously under-represented in total.
The report concludes that the CPS
responded slowly to the existence of modern equal opportunities legislation
and that
The recent plethora of statements and actions plans on equality/diversity lack coherence and are heavy on ambitious declarations of intent.
It continues:
The Personnel Directorate does not appear to have taken a strong strategic lead on equal opportunities within the CPS. This is perhaps understandable given that the Equal Opportunities Unit, in particular, has been under-resourced and recently overwhelmed by casework occasioned by internal grievances and Employment Tribunal complaints.
I mentioned that there have been 22 complaints in recent years and I have referred to three of them so far. The CPSI must examine, on the one hand, the extent to which employment tribunal work is distorting the picture, and, on the other, the reasons why the lessons of the tribunals' conclusions are not being fed in to improve CPS operations. Mrs. Denman says that
equal opportunities monitoring has been patchy and unreliable … Training … would not appear to have kept pace with the demands of modern management … There is a lack of confidence in the Equal Opportunities and Workplace Bullying Complaints Procedure amongst ethnic minority staff.
She says that many staff feel discriminated against, but that
There is little evidence of any positive action
and that the volume of complaints is increasing, especially in London.
I do not propose to go through the remainder of the report's conclusions because, despite my earlier remarks, I recognise that this is not a Friday. I shall, however, quote Mrs. Denman's finding in respect of senior management:
With some exceptions, the instinct of those managers was to seek to play down the possibility of race discrimination. When confronted with statistical evidence, their first reaction was to seek an "innocent" explanation, other than discrimination, for the under-representation of ethnic minority staff at senior levels.
She notes that
recognition was clearly contrary to their instinctive or emotional feeling about the issue,
and that
A few remained inclined to "blame the victim".
That is precisely the problem that I have tried to identify today. It is a problem that starts at the top and works its way down throughout the CPS management. There is a prima facie, if not stronger, case that the CPS is institutionally racist, especially when viewed in the light of the Macpherson conclusion that:
It is incumbent on every institution to examine their policies and the outcome of their policies and practices to guard against disadvantaging any section of our communities.
That is an issue that the CPSI should be concerned about and should be looking into. If we are serious about eliminating racism within the CPS, amendment No. 1, which refers to internal employment practices, together with the Macpherson conclusions completes the triangle.
Finally, let me quote Mrs. Bamieh once again. She says:
The CPS are still victimising me. I recently applied for a post of Diversity Manager. The criteria was changed after I applied and I only discovered the changes when I appealed.
Discrimination is continuing. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will respond to my criticisms, which are aimed at the CPS, not at him; I know that he is trying to sort out the problem. If management will not do what is needed, the inspectorate must.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the amendments. First, I declare an interest in that, over a number of years, I have appeared as agent on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service and, before that, its predecessor, the county prosecution service.
Even if I were in a position to comment on the cases raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and attempted to do so, you would rule my comments wide of the mark, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, it is my impression, over a period of some 25 years practising in the criminal courts in Essex, that from an early stage the county prosecution service, and then the Crown Prosecution Service, engaged solicitors of a high standard from all obvious ethnic groupings. My observation goes back to the early 1980s, and does not relate just to modern times. Solicitors engaged by the service have universally been of an extremely high standard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon did not introduce the topic of discrimination against women or against those of any sexual persuasion, but I know that from an early stage, there have been high-ranking and able women in the CPS.
I cannot comment on the national position in the Crown Prosecution Service. Were any undue practices taking place there, to which my hon. Friend referred, it would be right and proper for such matters to be brought to the attention of the Attorney-General by way of a report, as proposed in the Bill. On the face of it, the Bill is an innocuous piece of legislation giving the inspector wide-ranging opportunities to inspect whatever he or she chooses in the workings of the CPS.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned, but did not dwell on, the question whether there were discriminatory practices in the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute. Again, my impression when I prosecuted and when I defended was that the Crown Prosecution Service acted in an even-handed and responsible manner and, was sensitive to current issues and feelings.
There are particular problems owing to pressure on the CPS, partly as a result of increasing administration and increasing functions outside the courts and the legal decision-making process, which make the job of the CPS much harder than it once was.
We should monitor the effect of Narey hearings on whether considered judgments can always be made. I am sure that those present in the Chamber are aware of Narey hearings, which in the jargon are called fast-track hearings. That means that the defendant in more minor cases will appear in court within a few days of being

charged. Hon. Members will apprehend the potential danger that because matters move so quickly, the Crown prosecutor may not have the time for judicial appraisal of possible racial or other discriminatory elements in the case. I have not come across that problem so far in the Narey process, but the inspector should consider the matter in an early report.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for the interest that he has taken in the matter over a considerable time. It is important that the Crown Prosecution Service should be accountable to the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to take an interest and to make sure that the CPS is accountable.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who has long experience in these matters, for his comments. I shall return to the subject of resources.
My noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I take extremely seriously matters relating to race equality. That applies to individual cases as well as to the more general concerns articulated in the interim report by Sylvia Denman. In response to a comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, I should say that the purpose of the Denman report was to examine the very matters that a formal inquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality would address. We hope that Mrs. Denman's report will sufficiently address the matters to preclude the appointment of a CRE inquiry.
I take this opportunity to outline some of the steps taken by the CPS and the inspectorate to ensure that the diversity issues raised by my hon. Friend are more effectively addressed. In the light of what I say, I shall invite my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendments.
The action plan, to which my hon. Friend referred, developed during the past year and revised in the light of the Denman report, will, I believe, produce real improvement. A diversity unit has already been established to take forward the strategic aspects of equality and diversity. The new diversity manager has been appointed and she will shortly take up her post.
My hon. Friend referred to the under-representation of ethnic minority people at the higher levels of the CPS. In that regard, we have set targets for the CPS. It must identify the grades in which ethnic minorities, women and disabled staff are under-represented, and increase their number in middle and senior management.
The equality committee has been established and is doing good work. In particular, it has re-examined training programmes to ensure that the golden thread of diversity is found throughout the service.
I come now to the subject of the Bill—the inspectorate. I assure my hon. Friend that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief inspector take racial issues seriously. There is no place whatever for racially discriminatory practices in any aspect of the work of the CPS. If such practices are identified we, at a political level, have clearly said that they must be robustly challenged and firm action must be taken.
The chief inspector is seeking to develop within the inspectorate an ethos which ensures that diversity issues automatically permeate all aspects of the inspection process, from casework through to the selection of external advocates and the treatment of victims, witnesses


and staff. Racial issues must be taken seriously in all those regards. Each area of inspection examines the handling of CPS cases and includes those matters, as well as matters such as the taking up of racially aggravated offences.
As I have told the House on previous occasions, the new method of inspection developed by the CPS inspectorate focuses not simply on the quality of casework, but on the broader aspects of management and operations. For example, the inspector will consider how the area business plan can be developed to ensure that equality is properly addressed. The inspector will seek to ensure that decisions on staff recruitment, deployment and promotion are fair and non-discriminatory. The inspector will also examine the manner in which each area sets its goals and objectives for equality, and how they are delivered.
With regard to the external work of the CPS operations, the inspectorate will consider the links that each area has with community organisations. In particular, it will consider recruitment and what steps are being taken locally to encourage members of ethnic minority communities to seek employment in the CPS.
5 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned casework, and the Hull university report. The inspector will shortly embark on a thematic review. The House will remember that the inspectorate will conduct not only area inspections, but thematic inspections. In the next year, handling casework with an ethnic minority dimension will be the subject of a thematic review, which will examine cases involving allegations of racially aggravated offences—my hon. Friend mentioned such cases. The review will examine cases involving defendants from ethnic minorities and cases of incitement to racial hatred. It will also consider whether Crown Prosecution Service arrangements for monitoring cases of racially aggravated offences are effective.
Amendment No. 1 would create a specific statutory obligation on the inspection process to examine equality issues in relation to CPS staff. That amendment does not fit comfortably in the structure of the Bill, and would mean singling out one specific aspect. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon would acknowledge that other important matters should also be considered. As I said at the outset, my hon. Friend is right to be anxious about the matter, but he is pushing at an open door. As I said, the chief inspector is devising a methodology to cover the wider remit that the Glidewell report recommended.
When my hon. Friend spoke about amendment No. 2, he mentioned the case of Maria Bamieh, about which I do not want to comment. Several tribunal hearings reached particular conclusions, and the matters have been settled. Mrs. Bamieh is in CPS headquarters and, in her current job, contributes to carrying the diversity agenda forward. It would be wrong to use the inspectorate, which should deal with the performance and overall operations of the CPS, in the way in which amendment No. 2 proposes. As I said, the circumstances that the employment tribunals explored have been tackled.
On amendment No. 3, I do not believe that it is right to pick out specific topics for coverage in the annual report. It is right that the CPS is accountable to the House, but there are other important topics to consider. Disclosure has been discussed on various occasions in the House, and whether the prosecution discloses properly to the defence. Victims

have also been considered. My hon. Friend could ask, "If diversity is to be singled out, why not the other topics?" I assure him that the annual report will consider all issues. The inspector will send to hon. Members the area reports that are relevant to their constituencies.
The combined effects of the amendments have been the promotion of an important issue. However, I hope that my hon. Friend is sufficiently reassured to agree that they should be withdrawn.

Mr. Dismore: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is a short and straightforward one. Its purpose is to establish an inspectorate, independent of the Crown Prosecution Service. It places the chief inspector on a statutory footing. The Bill sets out the functions of the chief inspector, whose primary function will be to arrange for the inspection of the CPS. On Report, I said that Parliament will be kept informed of the work of the chief inspector. Members will be told also about the area inspections relevant to their constituencies.
I know that concerns have been expressed about the funding of the CPS by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and by other colleagues on previous occasions. Earlier this afternoon, my right hon. and noble Friend the Attorney-General was able to announce that an additional £15.8 million had been allocated to the CPS budget for this year. That is a useful step in the right direction. It includes £4.5 million from the police modernisation fund, which has been transferred to the CPS by the Home Office. The matter was agreed some weeks ago, but it has taken some time to put the agreement in place procedurally.

Mr. John Burnett: Does the additional £15.8 million mean that, this year, the CPS will be expected to allow for and provide efficiency savings of 3 per cent.? Will the deficits rolled up from previous years be overcome by the additional funding?

The Solicitor-General: This sum more than overcomes the 4.5 per cent. figure to which the hon. Gentleman has referred on previous occasions. In terms of a budget of some £300 million-odd, £15.8 million is quite a considerable sum. The funding will allow the CPS to implement a diversity programme; some £2.5 million will be allocated for that purpose. That very issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on Report.
In addition, the £15.8 million will be used to increase investment in new information technology. I know that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) has taken an interest in that matter; frankly, the CPS is in the dark ages as far as IT is concerned. It is only in recent months that matters have advanced.
Some £5 million will go to improving the CPS's performance. It will do that by targeting additional resources to areas where significant improvements in


performance can be delivered. As a result, the total budget allocated to the CPS's 42 areas in 2000–01 will be higher than for 1999–2000, in cash terms and real terms.
The funds recognise the important role of the CPS and the contribution that it can make to improving the performance of the criminal justice system, including the police and other agencies. It is especially important that the £15.8 million includes a contribution of £4.5 million from the Home Office. That demonstrates that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have all provided full support to the CPS's case for improvements in its levels of resources.

Mr. Burnett: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I must say that the debate is moving into wider territory than it should. This is about the inspectorate to be set up for the Crown Prosecution Service: it is not a general debate about the financing of the CPS.

Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we do not wish to overload the inspectorate by having inadequate funding for the CPS. I wish to ask the Solicitor-General whether the £4.5 million to which he has referred is the same as the £5 million that is mentioned in The Independent today, and which is to be used to develop closer links between prosecutors and police officers?

The Solicitor-General: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Narey project and the criminal justice unit project, which my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree mentioned earlier. Certainly, there is a contribution to those projects in the overall CPS budget. The close working of the CPS and the police is important, but I fear that if I say too much about that matter, I will trespass on other issues.
So far, the Bill has received a unanimous welcome in both Houses. The proceedings were very brief and I thank all hon. Members for dealing with the matter so speedily. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Edward Garnier: On Second Reading, I am reported as saying:
The Bill has been described as modest, short and uncontroversial. In some quarters, those epithets might lead people to think less of it, but, despite, or even because of, its brevity, narrow compass and inoffensiveness, it should command the support of the House.—[Official Report, 23 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 882.]
I have not changed my view.

Mr. Hurst: Like other hon. Members, I generally welcome the Bill, but I have one note of caution to add. Inspection is a fine thing as long as it goes wider than criticism alone. I am sure that those who serve in the CPS sometimes feel that they are the Aunt Sallies of newspapers, politicians and others who wish to criticise results in law cases that they would sooner not see, even though the law dictates the result. Therefore, while the inspection of the functions of the service will be wide ranging, one would hope that, on occasion, those inspectors' reports will give credit for the hard work and dedication of Crown prosecutors throughout the country.

Mr. John Burnett: I endorse the comments that have just been made by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) because there are many hard-working and dedicated individuals in the CPS. I have also noted what the Solicitor-General has told the House this afternoon about funding. On Second Reading, there was considerable debate on that point, and matters have gone from bad to worse in the CPS. It is no good the Government creating new crimes and boasting of their law and order agenda when the CPS is unable to mount a compelling prosecution.
I hope that the CPS inspectorate will have sufficient personnel, especially as I have heard speculation that the CPS will take over the prosecution role of Customs and Excise. I wonder whether the Solicitor-General can tell the House, at this late stage, what role the CPS inspectorate will have, if any, in the matter of the independent prosecution agencies in this country, such as Customs and Excise.

The Solicitor-General: At present, the inspectorate will be confined to the CPS. Together with the Treasury Solicitor, Judge Gerald Butler is considering the wider issue of the future of prosecutions by Customs and Excise. At present, it is not intended that the remit of the inspectorate will be wider than the CPS itself.

Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for that reply. I am glad, as the House will be, that the prosecution role of Customs and Excise and of other independent agencies is being considered carefully. There have been errors in the past.
We welcome the Bill; we hoped that it would have speedy progress through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Orders of the Day — Animal Breeding Establishments

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. David Taylor: I express my gratitude to Members on both sides of the House for speeding through the Bill, thus allowing us such a sizeable slice of time to develop the themes that arise in this debate. The regulation and inspection of animal breeding establishments are important issues.
The way a society treats animals is a clear indicator of its wider values. For a nation that is reputedly kind to animals, it is little surprise that here in Britain there are hundreds of organisations and millions of individuals who care passionately about animal welfare. Sadly, the laudable British concern about the wide range of creatures that share this part of the planet with us too often coexists with our inhumane treatment on a grand scale of other sentient beings.
As a parliamentary candidate in the long run-up to the 1997 general election, I was delighted to be campaigning on a party manifesto that had a good deal to say about animals and their treatment. Of the mass of material that the campaign office sent out, perhaps the most requested and the best received was a colourful and well designed document entitled "New Life for Animals". I do not dissent from much that the leaflet contains. It spells out a coherent set of policies that seek to eliminate cruelty and to protect the welfare of animals, not only because there are powerful economic, environmental and health incentives for that, but even more important, because it is morally right so to do.
Like many of those who became my constituents, I was at best uneasy about the scale and nature of animal experimentation. I looked forward enthusiastically to the delivery of our campaign promise to set up a royal commission to review the effectiveness and justification of animal experiments, and to examine the options.
Closely associated with animal experimentation is the welfare of animals that are bred only for that purpose. Laboratories' requirements can be difficult to meet. Experimentation becomes more complex and sophisticated, with animals needing to comply with ever higher standards. If a laboratory needs dogs for an experiment, it will not be adequate to buy them from the town centre pet shop. An animal would obviously be most useful when a complete medical history was known and when there had been no exposure to any infection. Optimal results are gained if a family history is available to enable comparison of test results with those of animals of a similar background. These factors and others have led to the growth of a specialised industry to supply animals to the world of medical and pharmaceutical research.
I take a particular interest in the topic because there is an animal breeding establishment, operated by Harlan (UK), which is located near Belton, in my constituency. Harlan (UK) is the largest breeder of laboratory animals in the UK. Its American parent company is the world's largest privately owned producer of such animals. The regulatory and inspection regimes that cover centres such as Belton are detailed in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and in the associated codes of practice.
I backed the Labour party's call in opposition for a complete review of all aspects of that legislation because I believed it to be seriously inadequate. It is my purpose now to spell out my key concerns. Many animal welfare campaigners find it impossible to separate their disdain for animal experimentation from their disdain for the breeding establishments which supply the animals to the laboratories. Nevertheless, I believe that it is possible to adopt a more rational approach which is not ruled by immediate emotional reactions.
Honest debate and constructive comments about operational standards at breeding centres should not be distorted or disfigured by some of the disgraceful incidents that have been triggered by the tiny number of animal activists who use violence and intimidation as their stock in trade. Harlan (UK) staff members and their families were threatened, harassed and injured last year by such extremists. Such unacceptable behaviour is condemned by decent animal welfare groups. Those actions were both illegal and totally counterproductive.
Partly as fact finding on animal welfare and partly in response to the events that I have described, I went to the Belton complex in June 1999 to talk to management and staff about their work and the environmental and welfare standards to which they operate. I visited the animal areas and spoke to numerous employees. I saw for myself the conditions in which animals were bred, kept and transported.
It was only a brief visit—not in any sense an inspection—but I saw nothing major to raise with local management, especially as I was reassured that husbandry standards, breeding policies and disposal practices conformed to Home Office guidelines. I am sure that they did, and that they still do. However, I had cause to reflect on the adequacy of the guidelines when Harlan received hugely adverse national publicity just a few days after my trip round the plant.
A document published by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection accused the company of a variety of violations of the animal welfare standards required by the 1986 Act. The allegations were based on the testimony of a BUAV sympathiser who worked undercover as an employee at the plant for about 10 months and collected 40 hours of video footage and extensive documentation.
The Home Office launched an immediate investigation by the inspectorate, commencing in July, although it did not report to the Minister until just before Christmas. After protracted negotiations with the BUAV on confidentiality, the report, with just a few blocked-out sections, was at long last published this March.
In short, the inspectorate's findings did not bear out the BUAV charges in relation to Harlan's beagle breeding operations. The charges included poor care and husbandry, overcrowding, lack of human contact, premature mating, excessive culling of surplus dogs and inadequate staffing, training and record keeping.
In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), the Minister said:
Generally, the establishment was found to be well run and the level of compliance generally good.—[Official Report, 8 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 662W.]
I know that the BUAV found the report a huge disappointment, and it has now made a detailed and critical response to the Home Office about the interpretation of evidence and what it sees as a desire to exonerate Harlan at every turn.
I do not intend to make any further reference today to the specific dispute between the BUAV and Harlan and the Home Office about facts and conclusions, save to call for an independent element in such investigations in the future, to reassure the outside world.
I want to deal with the industry-wide concerns that many people and groups such as the RSPCA have about the breeding of animals for experimentation and the general inadequacy of the standards and inspection regimes. I should say at the outset that, while the Home Office codes of practice contain minimum standards, in no way can they be considered best practice.
It is vital that animals bred for research and testing be provided with a good quality and quantity of space, including environmental enrichment that is appropriate for the species in question. That is, I am sad to say, far too frequently not done. The code of practice for breeders and suppliers, covering standards for the housing of animals, does indeed recommend a minimum floor space for dogs, but there is no upper limit for pen size; and as large pens, containing 20 or more dogs, predispose them to fighting and bullying and make it difficult to handle or inspect individual dogs, a maximum number per pen ought to be specified.
Animal lobby groups allege that code of practice animal welfare guidelines are being routinely ignored. For instance, the National Anti-Vivisection Society states that, in 10 years of investigations, it has never seen bedding provided for dogs, despite the fact that the code of practice states that bedding and nesting material should be provided unless it is clearly inappropriate. There are persistent charges in relation to the inadequacies of metabolism cages and the housing of pigs and mice at a variety of different establishments. Those matters, too, need to be rectified urgently.
In relation to over-breeding, there are currently no legal requirements for establishments to state how many animals they breed or cull. Reliable figures are available only for Government-run laboratories such as Porton Down, where—as was revealed through parliamentary questions put by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker)—80 per cent. of mice and 85 per cent. of rats were killed as surplus in each of the last two years for which figures are available.
The Daily Telegraph estimated that an astonishing annual total of 5 million animals were being killed as surplus to requirements. On 14 August last year, an article in The Independent on Sunday put the number of "excess animals" at up to 9 million. Those are astonishing figures. I do not know how many of those animals are killed in breeding establishments, but, like the Animal Procedures Committee, I urge that the 1986 Act be amended to require the 170 breeding and 75 supply establishments, which already record the provision of more than 2.5 million animals for experiments, also to record how many animals are bred but found not to be required and subsequently euthanised, or killed for their blood products or organs.
Extensive research by animal welfare groups suggests that correct killing procedures are not always followed and personnel are not always properly trained. The public have a right to know about the mode and scale of the animal slaughter that takes place in our country. The code

of practice has been criticised by the BUAV in relation to weak controls on ages for breeding—especially for dogs. The code of practice should specify a minimum age at which female bitches can first be mated and should give guidance on the age at which they should be retired, or perhaps on the maximum number of allowable litters.
Inspection is inadequate. My research reveals that, in 1998, there were 284 establishments liable for inspection; 4,964 projects that needed monitoring; and almost 15,000 licence holders. And how many inspectors are there? Just 21. They have to assess all new projects, many of which will be at the leading edge of research. They have to examine those projects and apply, wherever feasible, the principle of the three Rs—reducing the number of animals used; refining experiments to cut down on suffering; and replacing them, where possible, with non-animal methods.
Inspectors must ensure that all licence holders receive up-to-date training and education, and that all conditions of project licences are kept. In the light of its range of duties and the size of the industry, the size of the inspectorate is patently far too small. It is certainly unsurprising that the number of unannounced visits—which prevent staff from cleaning up and hiding away problems—is low. Would it not be desirable to recruit more inspectors who would emphasise the possibilities of the greater use of research into non-animal methods of experimentation?
I conclude my analysis of the weaknesses of the current legislation and regulation with a brief look at the ethical review process under the provisions of the 1986 Act. In April 1999, it became mandatory for every breeding establishment to form a local ethical review committee. Those committees should provide independent advice, give due consideration to animal welfare, and adopt best practice on the three Rs—reduction, refinement and replacement.
The guidance notes suggest that lay people should be involved. I was quite impressed by Harlan's approach to those requirements when I discussed them with local management. However, evidence from elsewhere is rather less satisfactory. The appointment of lay people seems to occur rarely and, to the knowledge of Naturewatch, animal welfarists have never been invited to take part in any review processes. The code of practice talks about a wide group of people being involved in ethical review, including those who are independent of the establishment. That is not happening in practice.
Like most animal welfare campaigners, I should much prefer it if no animal experimentation took place in this country. However, if that goal is not immediately achievable, the next best aim is to ensure that all animals used are kept to the highest possible welfare standards.
The only realistic direct influence that Members of Parliament can exert is on UK breeding establishments under UK jurisdiction. However, the dilemma is that, if campaigning pressure closes breeding centres, the only alternative sources of supply may be firms abroad, with consequently longer travel times to the research establishments. More important, there would be little opportunity to monitor or influence the welfare of animals produced in foreign countries.
It is probably true that animal welfare regimes in our country are the most rigorously regulated in the world, although many people believe that the standards are still


not high enough. Maximising the benefit to animals of even the present standards requires that those standards be much more effectively policed. The Government could do most to benefit animal welfare by reducing the need for animal data and by funding more research into alternatives to animal experiments, but those are topics for a separate debate.
In conclusion, the emotions generated by animal experiments often overflow into unjustified negative feelings towards establishments that breed animals for experimentation. However, unless there is a reduction in the use of animals, the eradication of UK breeding establishments would degrade animal welfare, not improve it.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take on board the much needed improvements that I have spelled out this evening. We have far too few inspectors to police what many people consider inadequate standards of animal husbandry. The figures that are published fail dismally to give the public a true and accurate account of the extent to which animals are used in the experimentation industry. There is a conflict of interest in ethical reviews within establishments, and there are concerns about the independence of those on whom we rely to develop ever higher standards and to monitor existing organisations and operations.
If we really mean what was said in the document "New Life for Animals", to which I referred earlier, it really is high time for us to do something about it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): It is a great pleasure to reply to this debate on what is an enormously important matter. The thoughtful way in which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) set out his case is an approach that needs to be encouraged on all sides of the argument. Too often, issues relating to animal experiments are presented in a very emotive and purely emotional way. Newspapers carry pictures of monkeys with electrodes in their brains, but I sometimes think that those pictures should be accompanied by pictures of children having convulsions, as those two images would encapsulate the serious moral dilemmas with which the debate presents us.
Scientists claim that developments in medicine have largely depended on the use of animals in research and that, without the many advances that have been made in medical knowledge, many more people—and animals—would have died. They say that it is therefore necessary to carry out animal experiments.
The more extreme of the animal welfare organisations say that no research is ever justified if it involves the use of animals, as human beings have no right to use animals for our personal gain. The more moderate elements in the animal welfare lobby say that some experiments may be allowable but that, in all cases, suffering should be minimised, and that only an absolute minimum of animals should ever be used. That is a far more reasonable position.
The Government believe that, at the moment, it is necessary to carry out some scientific research using animals. It should minimise the anguish or injury caused to animals and maximise the level of care, in so far as we

can, commensurate with ensuring that we get the scientific results that are often necessary to save lives—not only those of human beings, as I said, but those of animals.
The way forward is through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It makes provision for the protection of animals bred, kept or used for scientific or other experimental purposes. Protection is currently extended to all vertebrate animals and one invertebrate species—the common octopus.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all establishments in Britain that breed and supply laboratory animals of the types listed in schedule 2 for use in scientific research and testing must be designated by a certificate issued by the Home Secretary. Schedule 2 includes, for example, the commonly used rodent species, ferrets, cats, dogs and non-human primates. The legislation also regulates the breeding of all protected animals that have been genetically modified or are considered to be "harmful mutants".
The certificate of designation sets out the detailed conditions that approved establishments must meet in carrying out their day-to-day operations. In the case of harmful mutants and genetically modified animals, conditions on project and personal licences enforce additional requirements.
Establishments designated under the 1986 Act are required to provide a high standard of care and accommodation, and trained and competent staff, and to treat animals with care and respect at all times. All certificates identify by name the expert staff responsible for advising on the accommodation and care of animals, and vets to advise on animal health and welfare. The 1986 Act also provides for the inspection of establishments licensed under the Act. Inspections are performed by the animals scientific procedures inspectorate. The inspectors all have medical or veterinary qualifications.
The purpose of the inspection programme is to assess standards and compliance with legislative requirements, to report any non-compliance and to advise on the action to be taken. The inspectorate broadly promotes the best standards of accommodation and care; it is proactive in identifying and spreading best practice, thus continuously raising national standards. It is playing an active role in the development of improved standards of care and accommodation proposals being drafted by the Council of Europe.
There are 300 or so designated establishments. The 21 inspectors currently carry out 1,800 visits of inspection each year, spending of the order of 5,500 hours on site. On average, each licensed establishment is inspected six times a year. I can reassure my hon. Friend that two thirds of these departmental visits of inspection are performed without prior notice being given. Visits are generally made with notice only when it is necessary to meet with or interview specific members of staff. The inspectorate has access to all the detailed records that must be maintained by all designated establishments and to all parts of the establishments where animals are held or procedures are performed. Summary details of the inspectorate's inspection programme are published annually in Home Office annual statistical reports of animals used in United Kingdom laboratories.
In addition to the conditions set out in their certificates of designation, breeding and supplying establishments must also comply with the standards laid down in the code


of practice for the housing and care of animals. This code of practice exists to ensure good husbandry, and to safeguard animal welfare. It was issued after extensive consultation within the scientific community, with laboratory animal breeding organisations, and with organisations concerned with the welfare of animals. Its publication was welcomed by a number of animal welfare organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. In the case of genetically modified and harmful mutant animals, similar provisions are made in a code of practice for the accommodation and care of animals used in scientific procedures.
With effect from 1 January 1999, schedule 2 to the 1986 Act was amended to include ferrets, gerbils, sheep and pigs, if they are genetically modified. I will shortly be issuing new codes of practice for the care and accommodation of ferrets and gerbils bred for laboratory use, and for the welfare of high health-status genetically modified pigs that may, at some stage in the future, be used as source animals for organs to be used for xenotransplantation.

Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the housing standards for animals that are already covered by the code of practice and regulations are kept under continual review? I referred to pens where the minimum size of pen per dog is specified, but the maximum size of pen is not. That causes problems for those who run the establishments.

Mr. O'Brien: We try to keep the codes under regular review to ensure that they comply with the standards that we require. As I have already said, the objective of the inspectorate and the codes of practice is not just to maintain a basic level for as long as the codes operate, but to look at ways in which we can constantly improve on the quality of care that is available to animals that are used in scientific experiments.
The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes, we keep the codes under review, but I cannot assure him that they will be changed very regularly. That would have implications. It is better to have codes of practice that people can work to for a period of time. In due course and following a proper review, the codes can be amended and improved.
The new codes of practice were drafted by the inspectorate in collaboration with leading UK experts, and the Animal Procedures Committee has advised me on their content. The Home Office code of practice sets out minimum standards for the accommodation and care of the animals. As breeding animals are typically kept for longer than animals used in animal procedures, the codes also pay particular attention to the need to ensure that the environment provides for the behavioural as well as the physiological needs of the animals.
As well as generally applicable standards, the codes of practice also set minimum standards to meet the specific requirements of individual species. Although I have described them as "minimum standards", the standards set out in the Home Office code of practice represent current good practice. These standards meet—indeed, generally exceed—the requirements of the relevant guidelines for

the protection of animals bred and kept for laboratory use appended to the Council of Europe's convention ETS 123 and the European Union directive 86/609 EEC.
Nor do we rest on our laurels as regards the application of the standards. Through its inspections and contact with establishments, the scientific community and animal welfare representative groups, the animals scientific procedures inspectorate closely monitors developments and best practice in the housing and care of animals and facilitates changes in practices and standards when this will bring about improvements.
For example, the publication and implementation of the good practice recommendations contained in a recent inspectorate audit of the accommodation and care of dogs bred and kept for laboratory use has been welcomed by a number of organisations with an interest in laboratory animal welfare, such as the RSPCA and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. The inspectorate also supplies expert advice to other organisations working on initiatives to improve the welfare of laboratory animals.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the inspectorate's investigation at Harlan Hillcrest UK was instituted in July 1999, by my predecessor as the responsible Minister, following receipt of allegations—including allegations of breaches of welfare standards—received from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. The allegations were based on the evidence of a sympathiser working undercover at the establishment. Harlan is an establishment that was designated under the 1986 Act.
I received the inspectorate's report in December 1999 and published it in March 2000. The inspectorate's investigation took more than 1,000 man hours to complete and looked critically and in detail at every aspect of Harlan's standards and performance. Generally the establishment was found, on inspection, to be well run. The level of compliance with the legislative requirements and the expected standards of care and accommodation was found to be generally good—and, again, I add "on inspection." Inevitably this degree of scrutiny also highlighted some shortcomings—though in no case was animal welfare found to have been compromised as a result.
I did, however, take action against one breach of a condition of certification. On two separate occasions during a two-year period, one animal room housing rodents had apparently not been checked at least once a day as required. The certificate holder was admonished for this lapse. The inspectorate report also expressed concern that when key staff were absent, the establishment's staffing levels resulted in junior management tasks being compromised as manpower was re-assigned to make proper provision for the care of the protected animals. I have therefore also sought and received assurances from management about Harlan's future staffing levels.
I am not of the opinion that the findings of the Harlan investigation, or the other findings of the national inspection programme, have identified any significant welfare problems with respect to proper implementation of the current codes of practice.
We are working within Europe to develop revised standards that make best provision for the housing and care of laboratory animals based on their biological and behavioural needs. I believe that all reasonable efforts


must be made to ensure that the standards are not compromised and that welfare is not diminished unnecessarily in the name of secrecy.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire suggests that some independent element should be present when the inspectorate conducts investigations similar to that into Harlan. BUAV and others have made a similar request. I am giving some thought to how that might be taken forward, but we have not yet reached a final judgment. It would be premature to give my hon. Friend a definitive answer, but I have some sympathy with the view that he has expressed, and I am considering how best we can provide the inspectorate with safeguards against allegations of partiality, which I believe the inspectorate would also wish to avoid.

Mr. Taylor: I welcome the possibility of change in that respect. Is movement possible in respect of the recommendations by the Animal Procedures Committee of wider publication of the statistics on animals culled because they are no longer required or are of the wrong type or whatever? The figures produced by The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers are horrific.

Mr. O'Brien: We want to respond on those issues, and I am giving some thought to how we might do so. I shall make a few points along these lines shortly, but the issue that my hon. Friend raises is a very important one. We are looking carefully at how we can best deal with it.
My hon. Friend made particular reference to the fact that there was no upper limit on the size of pens for dogs. He concluded that large pens make fighting and bullying more likely and to some extent, impede the handling and inspection of individual dogs. The inspectorate investigation at Harlan specifically looked for a link between the size of dog pens, the maximum number of animals held in pens and the level of aggression, but was unable to find such a link.
The inspectorate investigation did, however, identify a number of issues that will be of interest to all certificate holders and others. Where they reflect current perceived best practice, they will be incorporated into Home Office initiatives to raise awareness and further raise national standards. For example, plans are being made for some of these to be taken forward with all dog breeding establishments licensed under the 1986 Act to raise awareness and ensure the highest possible welfare standards.
Like my hon. Friend, I am aware that certain laboratory animal breeders and suppliers have been subjected to what can only be called a systematic and organised campaign by animal rights activists in order to undermine those businesses. Some of the activities have involved intimidation and violence against individuals conducting their lawful business, and damage to property. I spoke recently to two ladies who had had their cars burnt out outside their homes. Their children were at home and the car suddenly exploded into flames. It is a matter for the police whether protesters were involved in those instances, but I understand that they occurred on the same night and that the two individuals worked for the same laboratory. In those circumstances, clearly there was a great deal of trauma and distress for the individuals involved, as well as their families and their children.
I share my hon. Friend's revulsion at that kind of behaviour. If protesters were involved, it is a reprehensible act on their part and I hope that it

undermines whatever support they might otherwise get. While supporting the rights of organisations and individuals to campaign lawfully and peacefully—as many of them do, perfectly properly—the Government condemn unreservedly those who use repellant tactics such as violence and intimidation, and wholeheartedly support the police in their continuing efforts to combat those who use such repulsive tactics.
Turning to the overbreeding of animals for laboratory use, the Animal Procedures Committee examined that subject as part of its review of the 1986 Act, as my hon. Friend said. The Committee concluded that, while some overbreeding is unavoidable, it should be minimised, and put forward some basic principles of best practice. The Laboratory Animal Science Association has also reviewed the topic, and information collated by it suggests that the extent of overbreeding is far less than suggested in recent newspaper articles. The Animal Procedures Committee has said that it will take the results of LASA's considerations into account before finalising further advice to the Home Secretary later this year. Once we have received that advice, we shall be in a position to take forward some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend mentioned the ethical review process, which stems from "New Life for Animals", which said that larger establishments would have to set up welfare committees. As defining larger establishments would have been difficult, we decided to require all establishments to set up a local ethical review process by 1 April 1999, which was achieved. Those processes examine ways in which the welfare of animals could be reviewed and review project licence applications before they are submitted formally to the Home Office. Recognising that establishments vary in size and nature and in the type of work that they conduct, we described what those processes must achieve, rather than how they should work. They are not meant to increase bureaucracy or replace the inspectorate, but help foster and promote the principles of the 1986 Act and a culture of care within establishments. Scientific researchers have recently indicated that they have some concern about the level of bureaucracy entailed by the procedures for making applications.
We have no intention of allowing the proper welfare of animals to be undermined or of unnecessarily relaxing procedures, but at the same time, we have no intention or wish to have unnecessary bureaucracy or red tape that prevents proper scientific research. It is a matter of getting the balance right and of ensuring that procedures to consider the ethical nature of an application are conducted speedily and properly and that they look fully and robustly at the ethical issues involved.
I want carefully to consider the way in which the ethical review process works. I do not want a situation in which, as a result of our deciding to adopt a relatively light touch on regulation, which lets the establishments devise much of their own ethical review process, some inadvertently gold-plate their own procedures and therefore create unnecessary bureaucracy and delay. There may also be other areas in which we can ensure that we protect the welfare of animals effectively and fully, while ensuring that unnecessary bureaucracy is minimised.

Mr. Taylor: Can my hon. Friend reassure me that there is at least the possibility that the people who may be independently appointed to ethical review committees will


include individuals with an animal welfare perspective? In its research, Naturewatch had not found that any such person had been appointed to an ethical review committee, and that is an important point.

Mr. O'Brien: Certainly we want to ensure that the ethical review committees include people who are concerned about the welfare of animals, as well as the necessity of conducting proper scientific experiments and research. I will not reassure Naturewatch that it can decide who is to be appointed to particular research establishments; that would not be acceptable.
However, we will want the establishments to include on their ethical review bodies people who are known to have a concern for animals and their welfare. We want to ensure that a lay member, who may be drawn from the establishment or from outside, is also involved, but we particularly want outside lay members to be involved at all establishments, and we will continue to encourage that. I cannot ensure that such members are always from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or other such organisations, but I say to establishments that such people should not be excluded. I am told that the establishments' approach is not to exclude members of reputable animal welfare organisations. I shall look into that issue for my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the whole debate about animal research has all too often been shrouded in emotionalism. It is perhaps right that when animals are suffering we should have an emotional response, and it is right too that when other animals or people, particularly children, are in need of medical advances to cure their illness, we should respond emotionally. It is understandable then that there is an aura of emotionalism around the debate.
At the same time, however, it is important that we do not allow the debate to fall into two polarised camps of those who believe that it is all about protecting animals and others who believe that it is all about making sure that science moves forward to establish cures for illnesses. We must get the balance right so that we allow proper scientific development. In the course of doing so, we must ensure that we do not in any way abuse our power over animals and that we have proper concern for their welfare and protection.
The Government are committed to high standards of animal welfare in those important areas of work, and we are keen that standards should be raised where demonstrable welfare benefits can be obtained. I thank my hon. Friend for raising those important issues and for his suggestions, to which I shall give further thought.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Six o'clock.